Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
Synergy or win-win between my work and the project i.e. if the project dovetails with what I am doing (or has a better approach). This would require some overlap between the project's architecture and mine. This would also require a clear vision and explicit 'clues' about deliverables/modules (i.e. both code and ideas). I would have to be able to use these (code, idea) *completely* freely as I would deem fit, and would, in return, happily exchange the portions of my work that are relevant to the project. Basically I agree with what the others wrote below - especially Ben. Except I would not work for a company that would aim to retain (exclusive or long-term) commercial rights to AGI design (and thus become rulers of the world :) nor would I accept funding from any source that aims to adopt AGI research outcomes for military purposes. Oh and yes, I'd like to be wealthy (definitely *not* rich and most definitely not famous - see the recent singularity discussion for a rationale on that one) but I already have the things I really need (not having to work for a regular income *would* be nice, tho) = Jean-Paul Justin Corwin wrote: If I had to find a new position tomorrow, I would try to find (or found) a group which I liked what they were 'doing', rather than their opinions, organization, or plans. Mark Waser wrote: important -- 6 which would necessarily include 8 and 9 Matt wrote: 12. A well defined project goal, including test criteria. Ben wrote: The most important thing by far is having an AGI design that seems feasible. For me, wanting to make a thinking machine is a far stronger motivator than wanting to get rich. The main use of being rich is if it helps to more effectively launch a positive Singularity, from my view... Eliezer wrote: Clues. Plural. - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Open AGI Consortium
You may be assuming flexibility in the securities and tax regulations than actually exists now. They've tightened things up quite a bit over the last ten years. I don't think so. I'm pretty aware of the current conditions. Equity and pseudo-equity (like incentive stock options -- ISOs) should be contracted at the earliest possible time, and before either financial or delivery milestones if at all possible, if you care about the value you will actually be delivering to your contributors. I'm not sure what you mean by if you care about the value you will actually be delivering to your contributors but, in any case, ISOs are exactly as problematical as regular shares/equity -- ongoing post-AGI profits are what need to be distributed, equity and control really only matter to ensure that the profits are distributed as promised. And then there is the what-if of dissolution, acquisition, etc in which a pre-AGI determination of equity ownership needs to be figured out -- the way you've set it up, the contributors would be entitled to squat. True, but there would be little to distribute pre-AGI anyways and the trusted owners would be morally (though not legally) obligated to the fairest distribution of source code, etc. possible (probably making it open source). Actually, that's not true, the contribution agreement could easily be written so that the code etc. goes open source upon dissolution. This kinds of things are pretty strictly regulated now, and waiting until the end to contract a stake to your contributors would be a disaster for them in terms of both their return and/or tax liability, If you're waiting until the end to distribute shares/equity, the immediate tax liability is nasty because it is counted as a sudden transfer of value. The return, however, if the shares/equity were sold immediately is exactly the same as if they owned it all along. If, however, ongoing profits are simply distributed (instead of equity), there is no problematical sudden transfer of value. And realistically, there aren't going to be profits pre-AGI. never mind the unpleasant scenarios that can occur. Which is the one true bugaboo for which I only have the solution of trustworthy owners. I cannot imagine that a savvy person would accept deferred contracting of options and equity. It would be one of the worst possible equity stake schemes I have seen. It's not an equity stake scheme. It's a profit-sharing scheme. Equity implies control and control is problematical. Can you propose something better that doesn't require guessing what a person's contribution will be IN ADVANCE. The closest *decent* way to do what you want to do is to contract options upfront with modifying conditions and qualifications based on future performance. Do you believe that you could successfully do that? Would you be willing to write up an initial shot at it? Mark - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Open AGI Consortium
I think he's just saying to -- make a pool of N shares allocated to technical founders. Call this the Technical Founders Pool -- allocate M options on these shares to each technical founder, but with a vesting condition that includes the condition that only N of the options will ever be vested all total This doesn't solve the tax problem though. The closest *decent* way to do what you want to do is to contract options upfront with modifying conditions and qualifications based on future performance. Do you believe that you could successfully do that? Would you be willing to write up an initial shot at it? Mark - 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/?; - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Open AGI Consortium
One possible method of becoming an AGI tycoon might be to have the main core of code as conventional open source under some suitable licence, but then charge customers for the service of having that core system customised to solve particular tasks. The licence might permit use of the code for non commercial uses, such as research, but for commercial use the developer would have to donate some cash into a pool which could then be divided up or reinvested in core development projects. If you're going down the route of distributing shares in future profits then those involved should be clear about the chances of getting some return and likely time scales. The Mindpixel project from some years ago was really a textbook example of how not to do it (i.e. by raising big expectations of near term profit, and then failing to deliver). On 04/06/07, Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think he's just saying to -- make a pool of N shares allocated to technical founders. Call this the Technical Founders Pool -- allocate M options on these shares to each technical founder, but with a vesting condition that includes the condition that only N of the options will ever be vested all total This doesn't solve the tax problem though. The closest *decent* way to do what you want to do is to contract options upfront with modifying conditions and qualifications based on future performance. Do you believe that you could successfully do that? Would you be willing to write up an initial shot at it? Mark - 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/?; 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/?; - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
RE: [agi] Open AGI Consortium
Mark, have you looked at phantom stock plans? These offer some of the same incentives as equity ownership without giving an actual equity stake or options, allowing grantees the chance to benefit from appreciation in the organization's value without the owners actually relinquishing ownership. Drawbacks abound, of course. But it might be worth looking into. Keith - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
provided that I thought they weren't just going to take my code and apply some licence which meant I could no longer use it in the future.. I suspect that I wasn't clear about this . . . . You can always take what is truly your code and do anything you want with it . . . . The problems start when you take the modifications to your code that were made by others or where you take what you call your code which is actually a very minimal change to someone else's massive effort. No one is happy when someone else takes their work, makes a minor tweak, and then outcompetes them. - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Open AGI Consortium
But how do you add more contributors without a lot of very contentious work? Think of all the hassles that you've had with just the close-knit Novamente folk (and I don't mean to disparage them or you at all) and then increase it by some number (further complicated by distance, difference of viewpoint, difference in possible contributions much less being able to accurately assess that, etc.) - Original Message - From: Benjamin Goertzel To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 7:54 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Open AGI Consortium I think he's just saying to -- make a pool of N shares allocated to technical founders. Call this the Technical Founders Pool -- allocate M options on these shares to each technical founder, but with a vesting condition that includes the condition that only N of the options will ever be vested all total This doesn't solve the tax problem though. - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Open AGI Consortium
Mark, have you looked at phantom stock plans? Keith, I have not since I was unaware of them. Thank you very much for the pointer. I will investigate. (Now this is why I spend so much time on-line -- If only there were some almost-all-knowing being that could take what you're trying to accomplish and almost immediately offer suggestions/help on what information might be relevant :-). Mark - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Open AGI Consortium
On 04/06/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One possible method of becoming an AGI tycoon might be to have the main core of code as conventional open source under some suitable licence, but then charge customers for the service of having that core system customised to solve particular tasks. Uh, I don't think you're getting this. Any true AGI is going to be able to customize itself . . . . (that's kind of the point) Well, humans have a kind of general intelligence and can also to some extent modify their own knowledge/situation. Having a general ability to adapt doesn't necessarily mean that you're are automatically an expert in all domains. Humans usually need some training or familiarisation before they can perform well at any given job, and I expect the same will be true for AGIs, at least initially. Of course AGIs will have many advantages which we do not, being able to transfer acquired knowledge more easily. - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
but I'm not very convinced that the singularity *will* automatically happen.
{IMHO I think the nature of intelligence implies it is not amenable to
simple linear scaling - likely not even log-linear
I share that guess/semi-informed opinion; however, while that means that I
am less afraid of hard-takeoff horribleness, it inflates my fear of someone
taking a Friendly AI and successfully dismantling and misusing the pieces (if
not reconstructing a non-Friendly AGI in their own image) -- and then maybe
winning in a hardware and numbers race.
Mark
P.S. You missed the time where Eliezer said at Ben's AGI conference that he
would sneak out the door before warning others that the room was on fire:-)
-
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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Open AGI Consortium
One possible method of becoming an AGI tycoon might be to have the main core of code as conventional open source under some suitable licence, but then charge customers for the service of having that core system customised to solve particular tasks. Uh, I don't think you're getting this. Any true AGI is going to be able to customize itself . . . . (that's kind of the point) If you're going down the route of distributing shares in future profits then those involved should be clear about the chances of getting some return and likely time scales. I don't believe that it is possible for anyone to be clear about the chances of getting some return and likely time scales because I don't believe that anyone has that information. Each individual is going to have to make their own guesstimate of these things from the architecture, the project plan, their assessment of their co-contributors, their assessment of the difficulty of the project plan tasks, and whether of not they believe that the project plan tasks will actually lead to an AGI, The Mindpixel project from some years ago was really a textbook example of how not to do it (i.e. by raising big expectations of near term profit, and then failing to deliver). Yet that is what they (incorrectly) believed and what you're trying to force me to do. - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
RE: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
Mark waser writes: P.S. You missed the time where Eliezer said at Ben's AGI conference that he would sneak out the door before warning others that the room was on fire:-) You people making public progress toward AGI are very brave indeed! I wonder if a time will come when the personal security of AGI researchers or conferences will be a real concern. Stopping AGI could be a high priority for existential-risk wingnuts. On a slightly related note, I notice that many (most?) AGI approaches do not include facilities for recursive self-improvement in the sense of giving the AGI access to its base source code and algorithms. I wonder if that approach is inherently safer, as the path to explosive self-improvement becomes much more difficult and unlikely to happen without being noticed. Personally I think that there is little danger that a properly-programmed GameBoy is going to suddenly recursively self-improve itself into a singularity-causing AGI, and the odds of any computer in the next 10 years at least being able to do so are only slightly higher. - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Open AGI Consortium
On Jun 4, 2007, at 4:35 AM, Mark Waser wrote: This kinds of things are pretty strictly regulated now, and waiting until the end to contract a stake to your contributors would be a disaster for them in terms of both their return and/or tax liability, If you're waiting until the end to distribute shares/equity, the immediate tax liability is nasty because it is counted as a sudden transfer of value. The return, however, if the shares/equity were sold immediately is exactly the same as if they owned it all along. If, however, ongoing profits are simply distributed (instead of equity), there is no problematical sudden transfer of value. And realistically, there aren't going to be profits pre-AGI. Depending on how the nominal value is disbursed, the true financial value can vary significantly. Other than outright equity, Instruments like profit distribution are about the worst in this regard, instruments like warrants are among the best (but you can't give those to just anyone), and most other instruments fall somewhere in the middle. The difference is significant: the real return between the best and worst can easily be 2x. (Depending on your specific type of interest in a company, an argument can be made that warrants can be more valuable than equity.) The closest *decent* way to do what you want to do is to contract options upfront with modifying conditions and qualifications based on future performance. Do you believe that you could successfully do that? Would you be willing to write up an initial shot at it? Since many startups in Silicon Valley do exactly this, I would say that it is quite doable. It is less flexible and accurate than waiting until the end to make determinations of value, but it is a fair proxy and both parties have to agree to it anyway. If structured well, bits can frequently be negotiated off-contract later if conditions change. It is how startups deal with things like high rates of churn. Personally, I do find the current state of regulation to be irritatingly inflexible. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Open AGI Consortium
The difference is significant: the real return between the best and worst can easily be 2x. Given that this is effectively a venture capital moon-shot as opposed to a normal savings plan type investment, a variance of 2x is not as much as it initially seems (and we would, of course, do whatever we could to avoid the worst of the worst cases). (Depending on your specific type of interest in a company, an argument can be made that warrants can be more valuable than equity.) Warrants have the same control problems as options do -- magnified by the fact that they are transferable. They are definitely not what I would call acceptable for this purpose. Since many startups in Silicon Valley do exactly this, I would say that it is quite doable. It is less flexible and accurate than waiting until the end to make determinations of value, but it is a fair proxy and both parties have to agree to it anyway. If structured well, bits can frequently be negotiated off-contract later if conditions change. It is how startups deal with things like high rates of churn. I would argue that while it is doable when there is a relatively small number of people, when the people know each other, and when they have a reasonable amount of togetherness time -- I don't see it working in the proposed circumstances. = = = = = You *are* giving good solid financial advice and I *do* appreciate it. I'm just not seeing a good, clean way to do everything that I want to do (which is really a sad commentary on the current state of regulation). Mark - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Open AGI Consortium
On Jun 4, 2007, at 8:07 AM, Mark Waser wrote: (Depending on your specific type of interest in a company, an argument can be made that warrants can be more valuable than equity.) Warrants have the same control problems as options do -- magnified by the fact that they are transferable. They are definitely not what I would call acceptable for this purpose. Eh? What is the problem with them being transferable? Of what value are these instruments to anyone if they are not ultimately transferable? This is the kind of control freak tendency that makes many startup ventures untenable; if you cannot give up some control (and I will grant such tendencies are not natural), you might not be the best person to be running such a startup venture. If I was a VC looking at your company -- not a foreign role for me -- the fixation on that aspect would raise red flags. Blue sky ventures and maintaining control are pretty much in opposition to each other if you do not want to marginalize your funding opportunities. The lack of intrinsic capital is going to make things tough, because the only real currency you have *is* control. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
[agi] credit attribution method
On 6/4/07, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Judging by the volume of text generated so far on this subject I expect that anyone joining this sort of venture will waste a lot of their mental energy determining precisely who owns what and arguing over the details of the mechanism for allocation of profits based upon contributions (does number of lines of code equal contribution, and if so is this likely to lead to a good AGI design?). Yes, measuring contributions is the crux of the problem. To measure *each* item of contribution, self-rating + (optional) peer-rating + (optional) peer complaint + (optional) managerial board arbitration is the only feasible solution I can think of. Peer-rating should be made optional as we cannot expect all members to rate every contribution -- too time-wasting. Trying to measure a member's *overall* contribution over a period of time is problematic because peers can't have photographic memory of the myriad contributions made by an individual in a period. The problem is compounded by the problems of assessing: 1. short-term income-generating ability 2. risk of the contribution being ripped-off by theives Interestingly, self-rating +... can solve all these problems, provided that we have a significant number of well-behaving and honest members. Using a non-existent AGI to rate contributions... is not a realistic idea. So if someone can suggest a better, realistic solution, I'm willing to adopt it. If not, I still believe that self-rating +... is worth giving a try. YKY - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
On 04/06/07, Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if a time will come when the personal security of AGI researchers or conferences will be a real concern. Stopping AGI could be a high priority for existential-risk wingnuts. I think this is the view put forward by Hugo De Garis. I used to regard his views as little more than an amusing sci-fi plot, but more recently I am slowly coming around to the view that there could emerge a rift between those who want to build human-rivaling intelligences and those who don't, probably at first amongst academics then later in the rest of society. I think it's quite possible that todays existential riskers may turn into tomorrows neo-luddite movement. I also think that some of those promoting AI today may switch sides as they see the prospect of a singularity becoming more imminent. - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: Slavery (was Re: [agi] Opensource Business Model)
But you haven't answered my question. How do you test if a machine is conscious, and is therefore (1) dangerous, and (2) deserving of human rights? Easily, once it acts autonomously, not based on your direct given goals and orders, when it begins acting and generating its own new goals. After that all bets are off, and its a 'being' in its own right. James Ratcliff Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Mark Waser wrote: Belief in consciousness and belief in free will are parts of the human brain's programming. If we want an AGI to obey us, then we should not program these beliefs into it. Are we positive that we can avoid doing so? Can we prevent others from doing so? We have discussed friendly AI at length. As far as I know, we cannot guarantee an AI will be friendly, any more than we can guarantee that software will be free of bugs. The obstacle is not our lack of effort, but a fundamental limitation of algorithmic complexity theory. But programming a belief of consciousness or free will seems to be a hard problem, that has no practical benefit anyway. It seems to be easier to build machines without them. We do it all the time. including systems that exceed human intelligence, such as Google. Google doesn't exceed human intelligence. You aren't worth debating with if you truly believe such things. Google (the search engine) has a larger memory and greater processing speed than the human brain with respect to language. These are two possible ways in which intelligence can be measured. But since we lack a definition of intelligence that we can all agree on, you are free to change the rules every time a machine threatens human supremacy, and you will win every time. But you haven't answered my question. How do you test if a machine is conscious, and is therefore (1) dangerous, and (2) deserving of human rights? -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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/?; ___ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... - Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] credit attribution method
Now, all we need to do is find 2 AGI designers who agree on something. - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
On 6/5/07, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think this is the view put forward by Hugo De Garis. I used to regard his views as little more than an amusing sci-fi plot, but more recently I am slowly coming around to the view that there could emerge a rift between those who want to build human-rivaling intelligences and those who don't, probably at first amongst academics then later in the rest of society. I think it's quite possible that todays existential riskers may turn into tomorrows neo-luddite movement. I also think that some of those promoting AI today may switch sides as they see the prospect of a singularity becoming more imminent. On the subject of neo-luddite terrorists, the Unabomber's Manifesto makes for fascinating but chilling reading: http://www.thecourier.com/manifest.htm David - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
[agi] Re: PolyContextural Logics
One more bite: Locus Solum: From the rules of logic to the logic of rules by Jean-Yves Girard, 2000. http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1994 On 6/5/07, Lukasz Stafiniak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speaking of logical approaches to AGI... :-) http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/ - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
[agi] New AI related charity?
Is there space within the charity world for another one related to intelligence but with a different focus to SIAI? Rather than specifically funding an AGI effort or creating one in order to bring about a specific goal state of humanity in mind, it would be dedicated to funding a search for the answers to a series of questions that will help answer the questions of, What is intelligence? and, What are the possible futures that follow on from humans discovering what intelligence is? The second question being answered once we have better knowledge of the answer to the first. I feel a charity is needed to focus the some of the efforts of all of us, as the time is not right for applications, and we are all pulling in diverse directions. The sorts of questions I would like the charity to fund to answer are the following (in a full and useful fashion, my own very partial answers follow). 1) What sorts of limits are there to learning systems? 2) Which systems can approach those limits?And are they suitable for creating intelligences, depending upon their assumptions they make about the world around them. I am following this track, as a system that can make better use of the information streams to alter how it behaves, than other systems, is more likely to be what we think of as intelligent. The only caveat to this is that this is true as long as it has to deal with the same classes or quality of information streams as humans. Pointers towards answers 1) No system can make justified choices about how it should behave at a greater rate than the bit rate of their input streams. 2)A von Neumann architecture computer, loading a program from external information sources, approaches that limit (as it makes a choice to alter its behaviour by one bit for every bit it receives, assuming a non redundant encoding of the program). It is not suitable for intelligent systems though as it assumes that the information it gets from the environment is correct and non-hostile. How to make a system with the same ability to approach the limits to learning and deal with potentially harmful information is what I would like to focus on after these answers are formalised. I would be interested in other peoples opinion on these questions and answers, and also the questions they would get an intelligence research charity to fund. Will Pearson - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
[agi] What was that again?
The benefits of forgetfulness: smaller search spaces mean easier recall http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070604-the-benefits-of-forgetfulness-smaller-search-spaces-mean-faster-recall.html j - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
[agi] credit attribution method
Using a non-existent AGI to rate contributions... is not a realistic idea. Ok, I'll bite. Why not? - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] poll: what do you look for when joining an AGI group?
Mark Waser wrote: P.S. You missed the time where Eliezer said at Ben's AGI conference that he would sneak out the door before warning others that the room was on fire:-) This absolutely never happened. I absolutely do not say such things, even as a joke, because I understand the logic of the multiplayer iterated prisoner's dilemma - as soon as anyone defects, everyone gets hurt. Some people who did not understand the IPD, and hence could not conceive of my understanding the IPD, made jokes about that because they could not conceive of behaving otherwise in my place. But I never, ever said that, even as a joke, and was saddened but not surprised to hear it. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] credit attribution method
On 6/5/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Using a non-existent AGI to rate contributions... is not a realistic idea. Ok, I'll bite. Why not? It seems that you're just using the promise that there'll be a future AGI (and so presumably credits can be assessed more objectively, which I agree) but in reality you're using traditional, opaque managerial practices to run the company. This is not the way to attract a large number of participants. The point of my proposal is recruit *many more* participants than traditional companies. I believe AGI will need the collaboration of many individuals. In a traditional startup the founders can exercise much more control but they also need to work much harder to be a competent leader. If their startup is successful they usually get disproportionately rich because the non-linear effects that Bill Gates so famously talked about, while the rest of the regular employees receive a linear wage. Under my proposal, basically all participants can enjoy the nonlinear leverage of the project's success, depending on the amount of their contributions (and the attribution mechanism). Anyway, I see this as an improvement over traditional startups / partnerships. Let's do a joint project -- I need people to help me ;) YKY - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
Re: [agi] Pure reason is a disease.
Hi Mark, Your brain can be simulated on a large/fast enough von Neumann architecture. From the behavioral perspective (which is good enough for AGI) - yes, but that's not the whole story when it comes to human brain. In our brains, information not only is and moves but also feels. From my perspective, the idea of uploading human mind into (or fully simulating in) a VN architecture system is like trying to create (not just draw) a 3D object in a 2D space. You can find a way how to represent it even in 1D, but you miss the real view - which, in this analogy, would be the beauty (or awfulness) needed to justify actions. It's meaningless to take action without feelings - you are practically dead - there is just some mechanical device trying to make moves in your way of thinking. But thinking is not our goal. Feeling is. The goal is to not have goal(s) and safely feel the best forever. prove that you aren't just living in a simulation. Impossible If you can't, then you must either concede that feeling pain is possible for a simulated entity.. It is possible. There are just good reasons to believe that it takes more than a bunch of semiconductor based slots storing 1s and 0s. Regards, Jiri - 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/?member_id=231415user_secret=e9e40a7e
