--
Hello everyone,
I have been busy the past few weeks hence the lack of input. But I will
chime in on the funding front. Firstly, I should introduce myself to those
who don't know me (most of you). My name is Abdul Malik and I work for 1000
Planets Inc. ( www.1000planets.com ) a space development company, we are
tyring to develop the necessary infrastructure to enable development of
space i.e. launchers etc. One area of great benefit and importance (one of
NASA's great hopes for cheaper, faster, better space missions) is A.I. and
for us AGI. Now onto the body of the e-mail.
It is fairly obvious that conventional funding for AGI or AGI-related R D
is virtually non-existent. Most funds available for A.I. research hail from
segments of the government i.e. the NSF, military etc. Moreover, such groups
(with the exception of the military, which leads to ethical and moral
concerns) are more sympathetic to narrow-based A.I. research. Narrow-based
A.I. is not as grand as broad-based A.I. but it is also cheaper, relatively
less challenging, more predictable, more definable etc. than broad-based
A.I. Incremental stable and specific development is considered to be highly
advantageous for all would-be sponsors of A.I.
Why invest millions in A.I. development when no one knows what true/
real intelligence let alone what architecture/working definition/attempt
will lead to it. Hence the proliferation of narrow-A.I. in academia (where
the funding authorities are ultimate masters) , business (for obvious
monetary reasons) and government (better uses for tax dollars).
Now some have suggested that for certain applications broad-based A.I. will
eventually become necessary and the A.I. community will be free to pursue
the old dream with more resources, more will and more hope.
ItÂ’s a nice dream but it will likely remain a dream. Basically put,
narrow-A.I. meets and will continue to meet the needs of most applications.
Applications that require more AGI-type capabilities are few and far between
and can be potentially be solved jointly by conventional information systems
and narrow-A.I. and another intelligence : humans. After all, do you really
require a voice-processing system to have creativity?
It has also been suggested that AGI-level A.I. components can compete with
narrow-A.I. The underlying assumptions with this approach are that AGI-level
A.I. can be reduced to some definable components and such components can be
utilized in a predictable, definable manner. Pretty tenuous.
All of this assumes of course that AGIs can be developed competitively
with narrow-A.I. That it is to say : AGIs can be developed within identical
budgetary and resource constraints. Also highly tenuous.
I believe the realistic option, barring visionary, deep-pocketed
investors/philanthropists, is to pursue the self-funding option. Moreover, I
believe that the most efficient self-funding path is through employment of
the general population as funders.
Industry is more supportive of conservative, immediate-payoff, predictable
A.I. efforts that can only be, currently, met by narrow-A.I. i.e. the
ever-present expert systems. Moreover, any attempt to create AGI-level A.I.
would naturally result in very restrictive arrangements with the developers
: real / true artificial intelligence would be considered a competitive
advantage to be closely guarded.
A relevant example : 1000 Planets Inc. approached a number of insurance
providers for the satellite industry approximately one year ago in efforts
to recreate potential investors for an Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (a space
tug boat with spacecraft servicing capability). Such a spacecraft would
reduce satellite transportation costs in earth-orbit while reducing risk and
enable spacecraft repair and upgrading. However, following the interest we
were bluntly told by one insurer that they would not provide funding as they
felt that they would be helping their competitors. In a cut-throat
industry where a single satellite loss can cost millions the insurers were
concerned that by helping to reduce collective risks they were potentially
helping their competitors. The other possible way we could have secured
their funding would have revolved around us becoming a strategic partner/an
in-house project/a subsidiary. Inevitably such a course would fail due to
perceived costs i.e. technological risk, money etc.
The general populous is more supportive of A.I. development efforts -
including AGI - than both industry and government. Some apprehensions do
exist in regards to AGI however, they will eventually need to be addressed
regardless of the funding avenues utilized. In addition, the general
populous collectively surpasses traditional funders of A.I. in sheer funds.
An example : the computer/console entertainment industry (estimated at over
20 billion USD) exceeds the movie theatre industry and will soon eclipse the
movie rental industry as
