Ian Parker wrote: > Matt Mahoney has costed his view of AGI. I say that costs must be recoverable >as we go along. Matt, don't frighten people with a high estimate of cost. >Frighten people instead with the bill they are paying now for dumb systems.
It is not my intent to scare people out of building AGI, but rather to be realistic about its costs. Building machines that do what we want is a much harder problem than building intelligent machines. Machines surpassed human intelligence 50 years ago. But getting them to do useful work is still a $60 trillion per year problem. It's going to happen, but not as quickly as one might hope. -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] ________________________________ From: Ian Parker <[email protected]> To: agi <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, July 28, 2010 6:54:05 AM Subject: Re: [agi] AGI & Alife On 27 July 2010 21:06, Jan Klauck <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Second observation about societal punishment eliminating free loaders. The >> fact of the matter is that "*freeloading*" is less of a problem in >> advanced societies than misplaced unselfishness. > >Fact of the matter, hm? Freeloading is an inherent problem in many >social configurations. 9/11 brought down two towers, freeloading can >bring down an entire country. > > > There are very considerable knock on costs. There is the mushrooming cost of security This manifests itself in many ways. There is the cost of disruption to air travel. If someone rides on a plane without a ticket no one's life is put at risk. There are the military costs, it costs $1m per year to keep a soldier in Afghanistan. I don't know how much a Taliban fighter costs, but it must be a lot less. Clearly any reduction in these costs would be welcomed. If someone were to come along in the guise of social simulation and offer a reduction in these costs the research would pay for itself many times over. "What you are interested in. This may be a somewhat unpopular thing to say, but money is important. Matt Mahoney has costed his view of AGI. I say that costs must be recoverable as we go along. Matt, don't frighten people with a high estimate of cost. Frighten people instead with the bill they are paying now for dumb systems. > simulations seem :- >> >> 1) To be better done by Calculus. > >You usually use both, equations and heuristics. It depends on the >problem, your resources, your questions, the people working with it >a.s.o. > That is the way things should be done. I agree absolutely. We could in fact take steepest descent (Calculus) and GAs and combine them together in a single composite program. This would in fact be quite a useful exercise. We would also eliminate genes that simply dealt with Calculus and steepest descent. I don't know whether it is useful to think in topological terms. - Ian Parker > >------------------------------------------- >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 > agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
