No need to reply to this exciting message, I'm just testing if
archiving works ;-)
ben
---
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
nked above, will be
much appreciated and enjoyed (All points of view will be accepted
openly, of course: although I am hosting this new list, my goal is not
to have a list of discussions mirroring my own view, but rather to
have a list I can learn something from.)
Yours,
Ben Goertzel
---
To
Hi Aleksei,
In this thread [see the end of this email for quote], I feel you are
attacking a peripheral part of Shane's argument. The problems with
the feasibility of defining or implementing "Friendly AI" that Shane
is presenting in his main blog entry, are not really dependent on his
prefator
Hi,
It follows that the AIXItl algoritm applied to friendliness would be
effectively more friendly than any other time t and space bounded
agent.
Personally I find that satisfying in the sense that once
"compassion", "growth" and "choice" or the classical "friendliness"
has been defined an opti
Meanwhile, the biologists continue making excellent, steady progress
toward understanding how the curse of aging operates
http://www.hhmi.org//news/morrison20060906.html
"
A single molecular switch plays a central role in inducing stem cells
in the brain, pancreas, and blood to lose function
Hi,
On Ben's essay: Ben is arguing that due to incomputable complexity
'friendliness' can only be guranteed under unsatisfactory narrow
circumstances. Independent of one agrees or not, it would follow that
if this is the case then substituting friendliness with one or all of
the alternative goal
Since we assume that AIXItl is effectively better at achieving its
goal than any other agent with the same space and time resource
limitations the specific values for t and l do not matter. Do they?
> In short: it's some pretty math with some conceptual evocativeness,
> but not of any pragmatic v
The subtle question raised by the AI/human fusion approach is: Once
you become something vastly more intelligent and general than "human",
in what sense are you still "you" ... ?? In what sense have you
simply killed yourself slowly (or not so slowly) and replaced yourself
with something cleverer
Lucio wrote:
In order to produce strong AI, though, we need to understand the mind
from low to high levels, or understand the processes that make high
levels emerge from low ones. That seems a much tortuous scientific
path, one that cannot be achieved by conventional and comparatively
predictabl
Hi,
Just for kicks - let's assume that AIXItl yields 1% more intelligent
results when provided 10^6 times the computational resources when
compared to another algorythm X. Let's further assume that today the
cost asscociated with X for reaching a benefit of 1 will be 1 compared
to a cost of 10^6
Thanks Ben, Russel et al for being so patient with me ;-) To
summarize: AIXItl's inefficiencies are so large and the additional
benefit it provides is so small that it will likely never be a logical
choice over other more efficient, less optimal algorithms.
Stefan
The additional benefit it *wou
When the purse-strings
open, and the money flows, it will flow like tax dollars, bequests, and
donations do -- toward politically tenable projects. Yudkowsky's
Friendliness theory, whether you agree with it's technical feasibility
or not, is very effectively positioning the Singularity Institute's
Dr. Omni wrote:
In particular cases a less intelligent entity is perfectly able to
predict the behavior of a more intelligent one. For instance, my cats
are less intelligent than me (or so I hope ;-) and they can predict
several of my actions and take decisions based on that. For instance
"Lúcio
In my view, thinking too much about whether one can prove that a system
is friendly or not is getting a bit ahead of ourselves. What we need first
is
a formal definition of what friendly means. Then we can try to figure out
whether or not we can prove anything. I think we should focus on the
pro
On 9/14/06, Anna Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ben wrote:
I don't think that Friendliness, to be meaningful, needs to have a
compact definition.
Anna's questions:
Then how will you build a "Friendly AI"?
If I wanted to build an AI embodying my own personal criterion of
Friendliness (or "be
Hi,
After reading KnowabilityOfFAI and perhaps coming to an Awful
Realization, it seems Friendliness is plausible with strict criteria
for an optimization target. It also seems an optimization target is
necessary, regardless, with more or less strict criteria.
This passage from KnowabilityOfFA
:43 PM
Subject: Please fwd to Singularity list
To: Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ben, please forward this to your Singularity list.
** Excerpts from a work in progress follow. **
Imagine that I'm visiting a distant city, and a local friend volunteers
to drive me to the airport.
Check out the new post and dialogue at
www.vetta.org
Shane posted a draft proof that provable Friendly AI is impossible (in
a certain sense) ... but Eliezer found an oversight in the proof ;-)
A fun read...
Ben
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe o
Right, but then when your program encounters an evil alien who says
"I'll destroy Earth unless you say 'Cheese!' ", your program winds up
taking an action that isn't very benevolent after all...
This gets at the distinction between outcome-based and action-based
Friendliness, which I alluded to e
Hi,
I have been considering co-authoring some verbiage aimed at explaining
the Singularity notion to intelligent, educated non-nerds (together
with a writer I know who is more experienced and expert than me at
writing for a non-technical audience).
Of course this has been done before, e.g. it ha
From what I've seen the Kurzweil approach is among the most
effective... if by "Singularity" you mean "smarter than human
intelligence making everything fly out the window", only a couple
hundred people even understand this, and most of them arrived at it
through Staring Into the Singularity.
Hm
Mark, you do have a good point.
The viability of speculations about future tech cannot be rationally
assessed by people who simply lack knowledge about current science and
technology. I think Kurzweil does do an excellent job in this regard:
his book spends a lot of time just educating the reade
Olie,
It seems to me that the time-scale issue is very critical here, and is
indeed the most dubious aspect of popular Singularitarian
prognostications.
It's quite possible to accept that
a) the advent of greater than human intelligence will likely lead to a
total transformation of reality, min
Peter Voss wrote:
I have a more fundamental question though: Why in particular would we want
to convince people that the Singularity is coming? I see many disadvantages
to widely promoting these ideas prematurely.
If one's plan is to launch a Singularity quickly, before anyone else
notices, the
Hi,
i'm very interested in following and joining diiscussions about 2012.
cheers
aLe mu(RaRo)
Regarding 2012 ... while this list is open to discussion of *every*
aspect of the Singularity, as list owner I would like to maintain a
focus on the Singularity in the Vinge-ean sense, meaning Sing
Hi,
On 10/9/06, Bruce LaDuke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just a sidebar on the whole 2012 topic.
It's quite possible that singularity is **already here** as new knowledge
and that the only barrier is social acceptance. Radical new knowledge is
historically created long before it is accepted by
Hi,
The reason that so many in the intellectual community see
Singularity discussion as garbage is because there is so little
definitional consensus that it's close to impossible to determine
what's actually being discussed.
I doubt this...
I think the reason that Singularity discussion is di
Hank,
On 10/10/06, Hank Conn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The all-encompassing definition of the Singularity is the point at which an
intelligence gains the ability to recursively self-improve the underlying
computational processes of its intelligence.
I already have that ability -- I'm just ver
ingly...
This doesn't mean compact definitions aren't useful in some contexts,
just that they should not be interpreted to fully capture the concepts
to which they are attached...
-- Ben G
On 10/10/06, BillK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/10/06, Ben Goertzel wrote:
>
> But
On the other hand (to add a little levity to the conversation), a very
avid 2012-ite I knew last year informed me that
"You should just mix eight ounces of Robitussin with eight ounces of
vodka and drink it fast -- you'll find your own private Singularity,
right there!!"
;-pp
On 10/10/06, Lúci
In something I was writing today, for a semi-academic publication, I
found myself inserting a paragraph about how unlikely it is that
superhuman AI's after the Singularity will possess "selves" in
anything like the sense that we humans do.
It's a bit long and out of context, but the passage in wh
MAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How much of our "selves" are driven by biological
processes that an AI would not have to begin with, for
example...fear? I would think that the AI's self would
be fundamentaly different to begin with due to this.
It may never have to modify itself to achie
Hi,
In regard to your "finally" paragraph, I would speculate that advanced
intelligence would tend to converge on a structure of increasing
stability feeding on increasing diversity. As the intelligence evolved,
a form of natural selection would guide its structural development, not
toward incr
Hi, Mike Deering wrote:
If you really were interested in working on the
Singularity you would be designing your education plan around getting a job at
the NSA. The NSA has the budget, the technology, the skill set, and the
motivation to build the Singularity. Everyone else, universities, priva
Japan, despite a lot of interest back in 5th Generation computer days seems to have a difficult time innovating in advanced software. I am not sure why.
I talked recently, at an academic conference, with the guy who directs robotics research labs within ATR, the primary Japanese government resea
Hi, I know you must be frustrated with fund raising, but investor
relunctance is understandable from the perspective that for decadesnow there has always been someone who said we're N years from fullblown AI, and then N years passed with nothing but narrow AI progress.Of course, someone will end up
I think Mark's observation is correct. Anti-aging is far easier to fund than AGI because there are a lot more people interested in preserving their own lives than in creating AGI Furthermore, the M-prize money is to fund a **prize**, not directly to fund research on some particular project...
Michael,I think your summary of the situation is in many respects accurate; but, an interesting aspect you don't mention has to do with the disclosure of technical details...In the case of Novamente, we have sufficient academic credibility and know-how that we could easily publish a raft of journal
Hi,
As a contrast to this discussion on why AGI is hard to fund in the US, I note that Hugo de Garis has recently relocated to China, where he was given a professorship and immediately given the "use" of basically as many expert programmers/researchers as he can handle.
Furthermore, I have strong r
that you're close to finishing
your project, I'd have guards posted in the server room. Things could
get scary really quickly.
Josh Treadwell
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Hi,
As a contrast to this discussion on why AGI is hard to fund in the US,
I note that Hugo de Garis has recently
Hi, > Ditto with just about anything else that's at all innovative --
e.g. was> Einstein's General Relativity a fundamental new breakthrough, or just a> tweak on prior insights by Riemann and Hilbert?I wonder if this is a sublime form of irony for a horribly naïve and
arrogant analogy to GR I drew
Though I have remained often-publiclyopposed to emergence and 'fuzzy' design since first realising what the true
consequences (of the heavily enhanced-GA-based system I was workingon at the time) were, as far as I know I haven't made that particularmistake again.Whereas, my view is that it is preci
Loosemore wrote:
> The motivational system of some types of AI (the types you would
> classify as tainted by complexity) can be made so reliable that the
> likelihood of them becoming unfriendly would be similar to the
> likelihood of the molecules of an Ideal Gas suddenly deciding to split
> int
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/singularity/
Tuesday 24 October 2006, 9pm on BBC Two
"Meet the scientific prophets who claim we are on the verge of
creating a new type of human - a human v2.0.
"It's predicted that by 2029 computer intelligence will equal the
powe
l donated something like 15 grand to SIAI a while back).
http://www.sl4.org/archive/0206/4015.html
I also think if you are expecting the Singularity in 2029 or after, you
might be in for quite an early surprise.
Ugh.. the poll on the website says "Whose vision do you believe: Kurzweil o
On 10/24/06, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/24/06, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know Hugo de Garis pretty well personally, and I can tell you that
> he is certainly not "loony" on a personal level, as a human being.
> He's a
Right - for the record when I use words like "loony" in this sort of
context I'm not commenting on how someone might come across face to face
(never having met him), nor on what a psychiatrist's report would read (not
being a psychiatrist) - I'm using the word in exactly the same way that I
would
HI,
About hybrid/integrative architecturs, Michael Wilson said:
I'd agree that it looks good when you first start attacking the problem.
Classic ANNs have some demonstrated competencies, classic symbolic
AI has some different demonstrated competencies, as do humans and
existing non-AI software.
Hi Richard,
I have left that email sitting in my Inbox, and skimmed it over, but
did not find time to read it carefully and respond to it yet. I only
budget myself a certain amount of time per day for recreational
emailing (and have been exceeding that limit this week, already ;-)
I hope t
systems) are
certainly NOT reliable in terms of Friendliness or any other subtle
psychological property...
-- Ben G
On 10/25/06, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ben Goertzel wrote:
> Loosemore wrote:
>> > The motivational system of some types of AI (the types you
Hi,
Do most in the filed believe that only a war can advance technology to
the point of singularity-level events?
Any opinions would be helpful.
My view is that for technologies involving large investment in
manufacturing infrastructure, the US military is one very likely
source of funds. But
Hi,
The problem, Ben, is that your response amounts to "I don't see why that
would work", but without any details.
The problem, Richard, is that you did not give any details as to why
you think your proposal will "work" (in the sense of delivering a
system whose Friendliness can be very confid
Hi,
There is something about the gist of your response that seemed strange
to me, but I think I have put my finger on it: I am proposing a general
*class* of architectures for an AI-with-motivational-system. I am not
saying that this is a specific instance (with all the details nailed
down) of
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Oct 30, 2006 12:14 AM
Subject: "After Life" by Simon Funk
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://interstice.com/~simon/AfterLife/index.html
An online novella, with hardcopy purchaseable from Lulu.
Theme: Upl
Hi Richard,
Let me go back to start of this dialogue...
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Loosemore wrote:
> The motivational system of some types of AI (the types you would
> classify as tainted by complexity) can be made so reliable that the
> likelihood of them becoming unfriendly would be s
Hi,
I feel a little sad, however, that you simultaneously bow out of the
debate AND fire some closing shots, in the form of a new point (the
issue of whether or not this is "proof") and some more complaints about
the "vague statements" in my emails. I clearly cannot reply to these,
because you
For anyone in the DC area, the following event may be interesting...
Not directly AGI-relevant, but interesting in that one day virtual
worlds like Second Life may be valuable for AGI in terms of giving
them a place to play around and interact with humans, without need for
advanced robotics...
-
Me, interviewed by R.U. Sirius, on AGI, the Singularity, philosophy of
mind/emotion/immortality and so forth:
http://mondoglobo.net/neofiles/?p=78
Audio only...
-- Ben
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://
Hi,
For anyone who is curious about the talk "Ten Years to the Singularity
(if we Really Really Try)" that I gave at Transvision 2006 last
summer, I have finally gotten around to putting the text of the speech
online:
http://www.goertzel.org/papers/tenyears.htm
The video presentation has been o
incredibly challenging and extraordinary task, but this
the impression which comes across in the talk.
Yours,
Joshua
2006/12/11, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Hi,
>
> For anyone who is curious about the talk "Ten Years to the Singularity
> (if we Really Really
oftware is often not documented or easily
digestable, but it seems like one of the most efficient ways to attack
the software development problem.
Bo
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Ben Goertzel wrote:
) Hi Joshua,
)
) Thanks for the comments
)
) Indeed, the creation of a thinking machine is not a
the numbers raw or divided by
the population size?
-Chuck
On 12/11/06, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For anyone who is curious about the talk "Ten Years to the Singularity
> (if we Really Really Try)" that I gave at Transvision 2006 last
> summ
Hi,
You mention "intermediate steps to AI", but the question is whether these
are narrow-AI applications (the bane of AGI projects) or some sort of
(incomplete) AGI.
According the approach I have charted out (the only one I understand),
the true path to AGI does not really involve commercially
BTW Ben, for the love of God, can you please tell me when your AGI book is
coming out? It's been in my Amazon shopping cart for 6 months now!
The publisher finally mailed me a copy of the book last week!
Ben
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or
Well, the requirements to **design** an AGI on the high level are much
steeper than the requirements to contribute (as part of a team) to the
**implementation** (and working out of design details) of AGI.
I dare say that anyone with a good knowledge of C++, Linux, and
undergraduate computer scien
Yes, this is one of the things we are working towards with Novamente.
Unfortunately, meeting this "low barrier" based on a genuine AGI
architecture is a lot more work than doing so in a more bogus way
based on an architecture without growth potential...
ben
On 12/20/06, Joshua Fox <[EMAIL PROTEC
This post is a brief comment on PJ Manney's interesting essay,
http://www.pj-manney.com/empathy.html
Her point (among others) is that, in humans, storytelling is closely
tied with empathy, and is a way of building empathic feelings and
relationships. Mirror neurons and other related mechanisms
Joshua Fox wrote:
Any comments on this: http://news.com.com/2100-11395_3-6160372.html
Google has been mentioned in the context of AGI, simply because they
have money, parallel processing power, excellent people, an
orientation towards technological innovation, and important narrow AI
success
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/1/07, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What I argue is this: the fact that Occam's Razor holds suggests that the
universe is a computation.
Matt -
Would you please clarify how/why you think B follows
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What I wanted was a set of non-circular definitions of such terms as
"intelligence" and "learning", so that you could somehow
*demonstrate* that your mathematical idealization of these terms
corresp
Richard, I long ago proposed a working definition of intelligence as
"Achieving complex goals in complex environments." I then went
through a bunch of trouble to precisely define all the component
terms of that definition; you can consult the Appendix to my 2006
book "The Hidden Pattern"..
Hi Shane,
did become possible, won't the Block argument then
become a serious problem? If you did have infinite computation then
you could
just build an AIXI and be done. There would be no point in building a
different
system that was provably less powerful and yet more complex to construct.
This would be the paper, everyone:
http://www.vetta.org/documents/IDSIA-12-06-1.pdf
Shane - first you smack down the Goedel machine, and now AIXI! Is it
genuinely
useless in practice, do you think? Hutter says one of his current
research priorities
is to shrink it down into something that c
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What AIXI does is to continually search through the space of all
possible programs, to find the one that in hindsight (based on
probabilistic inference with an Occam prior) would have best helped it
achieve its goals
We will only know for sure whether AIXI theory was useful or
not when we can look back 1000 years from now.
Shane
And of course, if we succeed in creating superhuman AGIs at time T,
1000 human-years of scientific advance will likely occur within a rather
brief time-period after time T ;-)
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 01:24:05PM -0500, Richard Loosemore wrote:
For each literary work n in N, use G to generate a universe u, and
within that universe, inject a copy of the literary work at a random
point in the spacetime of u. Measure the reacti
Sorry Shane, I guess I got carried away with my sense of humor ...
No, I don't really think AIXI is useless in a mathematical, theoretical
sense.
I do think it's a dead-end in terms of providing guidance to
pragmatic AGI design, but that's another
story
I will send a clarifying email to the
Oops, guess that email WAS sent to the list, though I didn't realize it.
But no harm done!
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Sorry Shane, I guess I got carried away with my sense of humor ...
No, I don't really think AIXI is useless in a mathematical,
theoretical sense.
I do think it'
AIXI is useless in a mathematical, theoretical
sense.
I do think it's a dead-end in terms of providing guidance to
pragmatic AGI design, but that's another
story
I will send a clarifying email to the list, I certainly had no serious
intention to offend people...
Ben
Ben Goertzel wrote
Shane Legg wrote:
:-)
No offence taken, I was just curious to know what your position was.
I can certainly understand people with a practical interest not having
time for things like AIXI. Indeed as I've said before, my PhD is in AIXI
and related stuff, and yet my own AGI project is based on o
Shane Legg wrote:
On 3/8/07, *Ben Goertzel* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
wrote:
using AIXI-type ideas. The problem is that there is nothing,
conceptually, in the whole army of ideas surrounding AIXI,
that tells you about how to deal with the c
The point I just made cannot be pursued very far, however, because any
further discussion of it *requires* that someone on the AIXI side
become more specific about why they believe their definition of
"intelligent behavior" should be considered coextensive with the
common sense use of that
Sorry, but I simply do not accept that you can make "do really well on
a long series of IQ tests" into a computable function without getting
tangled up in an implicit homuncular trap (i.e. accidentally assuming
some "real" intelligence in the computable function).
Let me put it this way:
software program scoring 100% on
human-created IQ tests. So, the Occam prior embodied in AIXI would
almost surely not cause it to take the strategy you suggest.
-- Ben
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Sorry, but I simply do not accept that you can make "do really well
on a
Alas, that was not quite the question at issue...
In the proof of AIXI's ability to solve the IQ test, is AIXI *allowed*
to go so far as to simulate most of the functionality of a human brain
in order to acquire its ability?
I am not asking you to make a judgment call on whether or not it w
AIXI is valueless.
Well, I agree that AIXI provides zero useful practical guidance to those
of us
working on practical AGI systems.
However, as I clarified in a prior longer post, saying that mathematics
is valueless
is always a risky proposition. Statements of this nature have been
prov
If you have 2.5 minutes or so to spare, my 13-year-old son Zebulon has
made another Singularity-focused
mini-movie:
http://www.zebradillo.com/AnimPages/The%20Shtinkularity.html
This one is not as deep as RoboTurtle II, his 14-minute
Singularity-meets-Elvis epic from a year ago or so ...
but,
I like Dicksley Chainsworth, too. It's always important for your heroes to
have a worthy adversary.
PJ
What struck me about that character was the uncanny resemblance between
Dick Cheney (whose head, obviously, underlies Dicksley Chainsworth) and
Steve Martin ... see the resemblance?
Why has the singularity and AGI not triggered such an interest?
Thiel's donations to SIAI seem like the exception which highlights
the rule.
Salesmanship? Believability? Fear of Consequences including
backlash? I would suspect it is the right people not being approached
in the right w
I don't like to insult US academia too severely, because I feel it's been
one of the most productive intellectual establishments in the history
of the human race.
However, in my 8 years as a professor I did find it frequently
frustrating, and one of the many reasons was the narrow-mindedness
of
Shane Legg wrote:
On 3/19/07, *Ben Goertzel* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
conservative incremental steps, the current scientific community
is highly culturally biased against anyone who wants to make
a large leap. Science has drifted int
My son Zeb read Candide by Voltaire, and was taken by the idea that this
is the best of all possible worlds.
He has applied this to AGI and the Singularity, in the following passage
from a SF story he wrote last week:
"
Out of the factory, designed with the sole purpose of generating such
A frivolous blog post some may find amusing ;-)
http://www.goertzel.org/blog/blog.htm
ben
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Research, SIAI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"We are on the edge of change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth."
-- Ve
ist is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
> To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
> http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
>
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Research, SIAI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"We are on the edge of change compara
_
> This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
> http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Research, SIAI
[EMAIL P
On Jan 20, 2008 1:54 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Natasha
>
> After discussions with you and others in 2005, I created a revised
> version of the essay,
> which may not address all your complaints, but hopefully addressed some of
> them.
>
rn
> expressed in each essay was/is a desire to see transhumanism work to help
> solve the many hardships of humanity – everywhere.
>
> Thank you Ben. Best wishes,
>
> Natasha
>
>
>
> Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - CAiiA, situated in
>
was really refreshing!!!)
ben
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Research, SIAI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"If men cease to believe that they will one day become gods then they
will surely become worms."
-- Henry Miller
-
This list is sponsored by A
Hi,
> Why does discussion never (unless I've missed something - in which case
> apologies) focus on the more realistic future "threats"/possibilities -
> future artificial species as opposed to future computer simulations?
While I don't agree that AGI is less realistic than artificial
biological
Mike,
> I certainly would like to see discussion of how species generally may be
> artificially altered, (including how brains and therefore intelligence may
> be altered) - and I'm disappointed, more particularly, that Natasha and any
> other transhumanists haven't put forward some half-way reaso
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
