YKY, I'm certainly not opposed to you trying a virtual-credits system. My prediction is that it won't work out well, but my predictions are not always right. I just want to clarify two things:
1) There is *really* nothing unethical about OpenCog's setup. However, if we need to discuss that in detail we can do that in another thread. Nor do I think your proposed system has anything unethical about it, as long as it's clearly explained and those who participate in it understand the potential risks and rewards. 2) You say "you're forcing me to do charity when I am having financial problems myself." -- but I don't see why you think anyone is forcing you to do anything! You're a free citizen of Hong Kong, you can do what you like ... and you can certainly announce and discuss your project on this list, regardless of its internal organizational, corporate or financial structure. There is no use of force involved! ... My earlier post about for-profit versus charitable motivations in humans was an aside, just an attempt on my part to formally articulate some reasoning underlying my basic intuition that the virtual-credit system might not work very well. Of course, this kind of armchair psychological theorizing can easily go astray; it would be a mistake to take it too seriously. But, if you didn't read Freakonomics when it was popular a while back, you might want to take a look at the chapters dealing with these themes. -- Ben G On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 2:04 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin) < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Ben and others, > > After some more thinking, I decide to try the virtual credit approach > afterall. > > Last time Ben's argument was that the virtual credit method confuses > for-profit and charity emotions in people. At that time it sounded > convincing, but after some thinking I realized that it is actually > completely untrue. My approach is actually more unequivocally > for-profit, and Ben's accusation actually applies to OpenCog's stance > more aptly. I'm afraid OpenCog has some ethical problems by > straddling between for-profit and charity. For example: why do you > need funding to do charity? If you want to do charity why not do it > out of your own pockets? Why use a dual license if the final product > is supposed to be free for all? etc. > > It is good for a company to be charitable, but you're forcing me to do > charity when I am having financial problems myself. Your charity > victimizes me and other people trying to make money in the AGI > business. > > I can understand why you dislike my approach: you have contributed to > AGI in many intangible ways, such as organizing conferences, > increasing public awareness of AGI, etc. I respect you for these > efforts. Under the virtual credit system it would be very difficult > to assign credits to you -- not impossible -- but then if you try to > claim too many credits you'd start to look like a Shylock, and that > may be very embarassing. Secondly, there may be other people in the > OpenCog devel team who dislike virtual credits for their own reasons, > and you may want to placate them. > > So, either we confront the embarassing problem and try to assign ex > post facto credits, or, another alternative is to keep our projects > separate. The world may be able to accomodate two or more AGIs (it > may actually be a healthy thing, from a complex-systems perspective). > I don't suppose my virtual credit approach can universally satisfy all > AGI developers. But neither can your approach (under which I cannot > get any gaurantee of financial rewards). > > I'm open to other suggestions, but if there're aren't any, I'd proceed > with virtual credit. I guess some people will like it, and some will > hate it. This is just natural. At least I'm honest about my motives. > > PS. The argument that "AGI should be free because it is such an > important technology" can equally apply to other many technologies > such as medicine and (later) life extension or uploading. It can even > apply to things like food, housing, citizenship, computer hardware, > etc. In the end I think we need to admit that the "good way" lies > somewhere between charity and for-profit. And my project aims to be > charitable in its own way too. The only difference between my way and > OpenCog is that I want to make the accounting of contributions > transparent, and to reward contributors financially, while being > charitable in some other ways, that depend on how much profits we'll > make. (Making the software opensource is already very charitable and > we may not be able to make that much money at all). > > YKY > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -- Robert Heinlein ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
