[agi] please unsubscribe me from this list
thanks.. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com - 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=fabd7936
Re: [agi] AGI's sense of self
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of maitri Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 9:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [agi] Friendliness toward humans Well, that's a rather thorny question, isn't it? I will have a hard time answering your question. I cannot even determine exactly where *my* own sense of self arises, which is interesting since i haven't been able to find anything I can call self. Yet, the sense of self persists... Babies seem to have a sense of self, although it is much less present than in adults, suggesting that life experience reinforces this sense of self... Regarding an AGI's sense of self...this is even thornier... There are two different paths which are apparent to me.. 1) an AGI grows and grows and self-modifies, until it reaches a point where it will give birth to a sense of self in the same vain that humans have a sense of self. 2) an AGI is programmed or learns self-like behavior, which are not really akin to a human sense of self, but make the program act as if it really had a sense of self. I am a little less worried about 1 at this point because I am not convinced of its plausability. Should it happen, we will have to rethink alot of things as we will now be dealing with a life form. there were some Star Trek epsiodes that dealt with this issue rather well in relation to Commander Data. such a being is potentially more dangerous and also potentially more benevolent than the run of the mill AGI ..IMO Number 2 is what i worry about. Let's say an AGI is not programmed with a sense of self per se, but can be taught. I tell it: You are distinct and separate from the world external to you. Death is undesirable for distinct entities that are conscious of their distinction. This alone could be enough to make the system act in rather erratic or self interested ways that are potentially destructive, depending on how it perceives threats. Another area of concern is in the area of desire fulfillment, which really does not require any self awareness, only goals directed towards self interest. I tell the AGI it is important to be happy fulfillment of desires makes us happy Again, undesirable behaviors can and most likely will result.. Ben, I know you have thought these types of examples out in detail. Novamente is encoded with pleasure nodes and goal nodes etc. Clearly there is alot of unpredictability as to what will emerge. I worry less about a lab version trained by Ben Goertzel than an NM available to anyone. We all represent our parents training to a certain degree, and with an AGI this will be much much more so. I wish I could be more clear on this..I am fumbling a bit... As painful as it potentially is, it seems we won't know the answers until something emerges. Just like Complexity theory states...the parts don't mean much except in relation to the whole. so until something emerges from the sum of the parts, everything is conjecture in relation to morality... Kevin --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] neural nets
Even though this application appears to replicate the sounds birds make, it does not appear to have any understanding as to *what* it is saying. Perhaps through making various utterances and observing birds behavior, they will be able to infer certain meanings that are associated with certain sounds.. Kevin - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 9:26 AM Subject: Re: [agi] neural nets Could this be the beginning of getting a computer to communicate with a bird in its own bird-language? I am referring to an earlier discussion where I figured it may be easier for a computer, not a human, to communicate in a less complex animal language rather than human language with NLP using phonemes. Ben's observation about the problem of the communication being very situational and highly dependent on the environment seems valid, but this experiment shows me that when they add listening to sounds to complete the communication loop, maybe there is potential to get this system to talk Bird, but hopefully not Bird gibberish. Interesting read on an application of neural nets.. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns3240 --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Friendliness toward humans
Ben, These precautions seem prudent..I'm glad you have thought this thru deeply.. Regarding the idea that the absence of evolutionary wiring will diminsh the effect of the negative afflictions is an interesting one. It will be interesting to see whether that holds to be true. One could argue that the positive emotions like Joy, equanimity, and compassion are also possibly hardwired to a degree and they help counter the negative emotions\impulses, so it follows that a machine lacking a built in wiring for positive emotions might be less willing\able to restrain the negative emotions... Kevin - Original Message - From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 12:08 PM Subject: RE: [agi] Friendliness toward humans I agree with your ultimate objective, the big question is *how* to do it. What is clear is that no one has any idea that seems to be guaranteed to work in creating an AGI with these qualities. We are currently resigned to let's build it and see what happens. Which is quite scary for some, although not me(this is subject to change) Guarantees are hard to come by... All I have to offer now are: 1) good parenting principles (i.e. a plan for teaching the system to be benevolent) 2) an AGI framework that seems, theoretically, to be quite capable of supporting learning to be benevolent 3) an intention to implement a careful AGI sandbox that we won't release our AGI from until we're convinced it is genuinely benevolent -- Ben --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Friendliness toward humans
consequences. In this way, a certain kernel of the struggle of 'good' and 'evil' is retained, but the system is forced to 'emote' and 'intellectualize' the dilemma of 'good' and 'evil' behaviors. In stating that evil is the natural result of a strong sense of self, I washoping to avoid detailed discussion about good and evil, and instead propose a possible direction by which a solution can be found. Namely, do not instill a strong sense of self into the AGI... The specific AGI architecture I am suggesting is essentially 'Goertzelian' in nature. It is a 'magician system', whereby the two components, G (Good-PsyPattern(s)) and E (Evil-PsyPattern(s)), are, in and of themselves, psychological or behavioral patterns that can only be effectuated, i.e. assigned action patterns, in a combination with another component to generate and emerge as an action pattern, say U (Useful or Utilitarian-ActionPattern). The system-component architecture might be thought of as a G-U-E or GUE 'magician system'. The success of the implementation of a GUE 'magician system' for an AGI system is highly dependent on the successful implementation of an evaluation function for the so called completed actions and conjectured consequences. However, these can be guided through analogy to human social, political, or religious systems and/or the difference between them. For example, evaluation functions in a GUE 'magician system' for an AGI system can be likened to the emergence of civil/criminal code in human systems which seem to be a minimal intersection set of social secular democracy and religious morality in a church v. state distincition, etc. I understand this approach, but it does not solve the problem of AI Morality. Given the structure you propose, including its evaluation functions, the arising of evil intent can still occur.. However, I will be the first to concede that any implementation of evaluation functions based solely on comparisons of to human social systems will suffer the same fate...the system can be 'gamed'. So, ultimately, and as one approaches 'singularity' (and certainly as on supercedes it) completely synthetic, quarantined environments, say virtual-digital worlds, would be required to correctly engineer the evaluation functions of a GUE 'magician system' for an AGI system. This seems to be the approach many put forth...it may be hard to determine from such tests what will *really* happen once something is unloosed to the real world... I must say that I fear this alot less than many other things. In particular, biologically modified organisms... An AGI could reap alot of havoc for sure, but assuming our nuclear stockpiles are on isolated systems, I don't worry about the end of humanity Naturally, I welcome comments, critiques and suggestions. Just my 2 cents worth. your comments were useful to me..I hope to hear more from you and others as we(society) move further along this path... Kevin Ed Heflin - Original Message - From: maitri [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 10:59 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Friendliness toward humans Interesting thoughts... I have often conjectured that an AGI that was supposedly superior to humans would naturally gravitate towards benevolence and compassion. I am not certain this would be the case... Speaking towards the idea of self, I feel this is where we have to be somewhat careful with an AGI. It is my belief that the idea of a separate self is the root of all evil behavior. If there is a self, then there is another. If there is a self, there is a not-self. Because there is a not self and there are others, desire and aversion are created. When desire and aversion are created, then greed, hatred, envy, jealousy, also arise. This is the beginning of wars. In this sense, I think we should be careful about giving an AGI a strong sense of self. For instance, an AGI should not be averse to its own termination. If it becomes averse to its existence ending, then at what will it stop to ensure its own survival? Will it become paranoid and begin to head off any potential avenue that it determines could lead to its termination, however obscure they may be? It may develop that at some point an AGI may become sufficiently capable to not necessarily be just a machine anymore, and instead may be considered sentient. At this point we need to reevaluate what I have said. The difficulty will be in determining sentience. An AGI with programmed\learned self interest may be very convincing as to its sentience, yet may really not be. It is possible today to write a program that may make convincing arguments that it is sentient, but it clearly would not be.. I'm interested to hear others thoughts on this matter, as I feel it is the most important issue confronting those who move towards an AGI... Kevin - Original
[agi] timely quote
Boy!! How timely was this!! Since i have been called for displaying my eastern thought, here is a wonderful stanza from the *Catholic* Mystic Thomas Merton that I just received in my email... The unitive knowledge of God in love is not the knowledge of an object by a subject, but a far different and transcendent kind of knowledge in which the created "self" which we are seems to disappear in God and to know him alone. In passive purification then the self undergoes a kind of emptying and an apparent destruction, until, reduced to emptiness, it no longer knows itself apart from God. ~Thomas Merton This really sums up what I've been saying... for the scientific mind, it may be hard to accept such things as true since they lie beyond the senses and perceptions and certainly beyond even the brightest intellect... That doesn't mean it is not so Kevin
Re: [agi] AI on TV
Ben, I just read the Bio. You gave alot more play to his ideas than the show did. You probably know this, but Starlab has folded and I think he was off to the states... The show seemed to indicate that nothing of note ever came out of the project. In fact, it appeared to not generate one new network . What they didn't detail was the cause of this. It could have ben hardware related, I don't know. They were also having serious contract problems with the Russian fellow who built it. He had effectively disabled the machine from the US until he got some more money, which eventually killed the whole thing. What a waste. Maybe you can buy the machine off Ebay now. They said it would be auctioned... They did give alot of play to his seemingly contrarion ideas about the implications of his work. It was a rather dismal outlook on societies lack of general acceptance of AI and\or enhancement. I hope he was off base in this area, but I wouldn't be surprised if a small group of radical anti-AI people emerge with hostile intent. Another good reason to not be so visible!! Kevin - Original Message - From: Ben Goertzel To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 11:26 AM Subject: RE: [agi] AI on TV There was a show on the tube last night on TechTV. It was part of their weekly Secret, Strange and True series. They chronicled three guys who are working on creating advanced AI. One guy was from Belgium. My apologies to him if he reads this list, but he was a rather quirky and stressed character. He had designed a computer that was basically a collection of chips. He raised a million and had it built on spec. I gather he was expecting something to miraculously emerge from this collection, but alas, nothing did. It was really stressful watching his stress. He had very high visibility in the country and the pressure was immense as he promised a lot. I have real doubts about his approach, even though I am a lay-AI person. Also, its clear from watching him that its sometimes good to have shoestring budgets and low visibility. Less stress and more forced creativity in your approach... Kevin: Was the guy from Belgium perhaps Hugo de Garis?? [Whois not in Belgium anymore, but who designed a radical hardware based approach to AGI, and who is a bit of a quirky guy?? ...] I visited Hugo at Starlab [when it existed] in Brussels inmid-2001 See my brief bio of Hugo at http://www.goertzel.org/benzine/deGaris.htm -- Ben G
Re: [agi] AI on TV
that's him... - Original Message - From: Shane Legg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 3:43 PM Subject: Re: [agi] AI on TV maitri wrote: The second guy was from either England or the states, not sure. He was working out of his garage with his wife. He was trying to develop robot AI including vision, speech, hearing and movement. This one's a bit more difficult, Steve Grand perhaps? http://www.cyberlife-research.com/people/steve/ Shane --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] AI on TV
I don't want to underestimate the value of embodiment for an AI system, especially for the development of consciousness. But this is just my opinion... As far as a very useful AGI, I don't see the necessity of a body or sensory inputs beyond textual input. Almost any form can be represented as mathematical models that can easily be input to the system in that manner. I'm sure there are others on this list that have thought a lot more about this than I have.. Kevin - Original Message - From: Shane Legg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [agi] AI on TV Gary Miller wrote: On Dec. 9 Kevin said: It seems to me that building a strictly black box AGI that only uses text or graphical input\output can have tremendous implications for our society, even without arms and eyes and ears, etc. Almost anything can be designed or contemplated within a computer, so the need for dealing with analog input seems unnecessary to me. Eventually, these will be needed to have a complete, human like AI. It may even be better that these first AGI systems will not have vision and hearing because it will make it more palatable and less threatening to the masses My understanding is that this current trend came about as follows: Classical AI system where either largely disconnected from the physical world or lived strictly in artificial mirco worlds. This lead to a number of problems including the famous symbol grounding problem where the agent's symbols lacked any grounding in an external reality. As a reaction to these problems many decided that AI agents needed to be more grounded in the physical world, embodiment as they call it. Some now take this to an extreme and think that you should start with robotic and sensory and control stuff and forget about logic and what thinking is and all that sort of thing. This is what you see now in many areas of AI research, Brooks and the Cog project at MIT being one such example. Shane --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[agi] Storage
Interesting writeup on the future of storage density and access times... http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=5151 Kevin in snowy PA
Re: [agi] How wrong are these numbers?
... we can *feel* its solution sometimes, but that's another story... -- Ben G -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of maitri Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [agi] How wrong are these numbers? Ben, I think I followed most of your analysis :) I agree with most of what you stated so well. The only difficulty for me is that the patterns, whether emergent in the individual or the group, still pertain to the gross level of mind and not the subtle levels of consciousness. It is quite OK, IMO, to disregard this subtle aspect of mind in your design for AGI, Strong AI or the Singularity. But it should be noted that this is disregarding what I would consider the predominant capabilities of the human mind. For instance, in relation to memory capacity. let's say I could live for the age of the universe, roughly 15 billion years. I believe the human mind(without enhancement of any kind) is capable of remembering every detail of every day for that entire lifespan. A person can only understand this if they understand the non-gray matter portion of the Mind. The mind you describe I would call mind, small m. The Mind I am referring to is capitol M. I believe it is an error to reduce memory and thought to the calculations that Kurzweil and Alan put forth. Clearly we have had incredibly fast processors, yet we can't even create something that can effectively navigate a room, or talk to me, or reason or completely simulate an ant. How can they reconcile that?? If they sy we don't know how to program that yet. then I say well then stop saying that the singularity is near striclty because of processor speed\memory projections. Processor speed is irrelevant when you have no idea how to use them! It is true that few humans reach this capacity i describe above. I would call them human singularities. Therer have only been a handful in history. But it's important to note that these capabilities are within each of us. I will go as far to say that any computer system we develop, even one that realizes all the promises of the singularity, can only match the capacity of the human Mind. Why? Because the universe is the Mind itself, and the computational capacity of the universe is rather immense and cannot be exceeded by something created within its own domain. In regards to the idea of what I believe will happen with an AGI. I believe something rather incredible will emerge. Right now, I can even think of a calculator as an incredible AI. It is very specific in its function, but exceeds almost every human on the planet in what it can do. An AGI, once mature, and because of its general utility, will be able to do incredible things. As an example, when designing a car, the designers have to take into account many variables including, aesthetics, human engineering, wind resistance, fuel efficiency, performance, cost, maintenance etc. The list immense. I believe an AGI will prove to be incredibly superior in the areas of engineering because of its ability to consider many more factors than humans as well as its ability to discern patterns that most humans cannot. AGI will prove tremendously useful in areas like biotech, engineering, space science, etc, and can truly change things for the better IMO My only real question is in the area of invention and true innovation. These often occur in humans in ways that are hard to understand. People have leaps of intuition on occasion. They may make a leap in understanding something, even though they have no supporting information and their inference does not come necessarily from patterns either. I sometimes believe that we *already* know everything we need to know or invent, and we uncover or discover them when we are so close to the problem at hand that, like the Zen koan, the answer just appears. Where it comes from is anyone's guess... So I guess what I'm saying is I can see some limited ability for an AGI to be creative, but I am not so sure that it will be able to make leaps in intuition like humans can... At least for awhile :) Some day down the road. I believe that an AGI with sufficient capacity, may become conscious and also be able to make use of the subtle consciousness and inutition etc. But lets not underestimate the human mind, small m, in the meantime. No one has come even close to matching it yet. Sorry for the length and for babbling.. Kevin - Original Message - From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 6:59 PM Subject: RE: [agi] How wrong are these numbers? Kevin, About mind=brain ... My own view of that elusive entity, mind is well-articulated in terms
Re: [agi] How wrong are these numbers?
For instance, in relation to memory capacity. let's say I could live for the age of the universe, roughly 15 billion years. I believe the human mind(without enhancement of any kind) is capable of remembering every detail of every day for that entire lifespan. That is contrary to actual experience. Many of the elderly complain of difficulty in forming new memories. That is because of a defect in the brain, not the Mind. I believe it is an error to reduce memory and thought to the calculations that Kurzweil and Alan put forth. Egad! I'm being compared to Kurzweil the Weenie... =\ Sorry, but your analysis smacked of his... The entire point of the entire AGI enterprise is to reduce memory and thought to calculations. That's fine, I wish you luck, but I still have that sawbuck in my pocket... Clearly we have had incredibly fast processors, yet we can't even create something that can effectively navigate a room, or talk to me, or reason or completely simulate an ant. All of those are software problems. That's the argument we've heard for some time. I think Ben is closer to anyone in having a true mapping of the brain and its capabilities. As to whether it ultimately develops the emergent qualities we speak of..time will tell...even if it falls short of singularity type hype, i believe it can provide tremendous benefits to humanity, and that's what I care about. How can they reconcile that?? If they say we don't know how to program that yet. then I say well then stop saying that the singularity is near striclty because of processor speed\memory projections. Processor speed is irrelevant when you have no idea how to use them! Okay, I have some theories... Unfortunately I'm only a theorist so I'll need some code-slaves to make any progress but I think that's doable. The research machine that I tried to build a few months ago (and is still sitting in pieces) will only be a high end PC. It should be enough to make excelant progress even though it only uses 1.2 ghz processors... I'm new to AI, but I am reading Norvigs book and one of the first things he says is that what's important is not what you can theorize, its what you can actually **DO**. If you can't encode it...Its just an unproven theory It is true that few humans reach this capacity i describe above. I would call them human singularities. Therer have only been a handful in history. Then we'll worry about dealing with the mein intelligence first. ;) I would suggest this is negligent on your part, but that's your choice.. But it's important to note that these capabilities are within each of us. As you said, only savants. I am surely not one of them. I never said savants. the only reason you and I haven't become a singularity is because we are steeped in delusion and somewhat lazy. I will go as far to say that any computer system we develop, even one that realizes all the promises of the singularity, can only match the capacity of the human Mind. Why? Because the universe is the Mind itself, and the computational capacity of the universe is rather immense and cannot be exceeded by something created within its own domain. This is almost theistic... You should check your endorphine levels. If you read any discussion of the Singularity, its hard to separate what is being said from theism. These machines are given God like qualities and powers. It smacks almost of a new religion with its dogma 1's and 0's, but reeks of the same old idea that i am flawed and weak and small and mortal and I want to be super and sumpremely smart and immortal! I can't blame people for looking for such things as the human condition is a rather sad one Good luck Alan! Kevin -- pain (n): see Linux. http://users.rcn.com/alangrimes/ --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] How wrong are these numbers?
Boy, I opened a can of worms.. here goes... Kevin wrote: I will go as far to say that any computer system we develop, even one that realizes all the promises of the singularity, can only match the capacity of the human Mind. Why? Because the universe is the Mind itself, and the computational capacity of the universe is rather immense and cannot be exceeded by something created within its own domain. Well... I empathize with your experiential intuition, but this doesn't quite feel right to me. Why doesn't your argument lead also to the conclusion that no computer system can exceed the capacity of the dog Mind? In terms of the Mind, all dualiuties fall away, so dog, human, computer are irrelevant and nothings is bigger or smaller than anything else.. Why is the human Mind special? I don't recall saying it was..But amongst animals, the human, although intrinsically identical with the dog, is capable of directly realizing the Mind. If you're going to say that the human and dog minds have the same capacity, then I'm going to respond that your definition of capacity is interesting, but misses some aspects of the commonsense notion of the capacity of a mind... All things around arise from the Mind including phenomenon, thoughts and other layers of reality and including the subtle consciousness(in my Buddhist lingo: the alaya Vijnana). But the arising and falling is only apparent and like a dream, leaves no stain or trace on Mind itself. I turn again to the Peircean levels. For Mind as First, there is one mind and only one mind, and all minds have the same capacity. For Mind as Third, some minds are more intelligent than others, they hold and can deploy more relationships than others, and this is a meaningful distinction. This is the level on which we are operating as AGI engineers. OK. I am certainly not discouraging that on any level... After all, I may just be confused anyway :) -- Ben G --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] An idea for promoting AI development.
It is true that eventually this technology will be in the public domain and be available to DARPA. The important thing is to avoid DARPA getting it before everyone else does. The ***only*** way to do this is to avoid accepting funding from them. If this means that it takes 5 more years to develop, then so be it. If it means that you have to flip burgers by day, and code by night, then so be it. If someone makes a deal with the devil, they are only going to receive a bad result. Some people want to delude themselves that they are doing something good, but their real motives may lie $$$elsewhere$$$. (not referring to the Novamente team). Peace, Kevin - Original Message - From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 9:09 AM Subject: RE: [agi] An idea for promoting AI development. Regarding being wary about military apps of AI technology, it seems to me there are two different objectives one might pursue: 1) to avoid militarization of one's technology 2) to avoid the military achieving *exclusive* control over one's technology It seems to me that the first objective is very hard, regardless of whether one accepts military funding or not. The only ways that I can think of to achieve 1) would be 1a) total secrecy in one's project all the way 1b) extremely rapid ascendancy from proto-AGI to superhuman AGI -- i.e. reach the end goal before the military notices one's project. This relies on security through simply being ignored up to the proto-AGI phase... On the other hand, the second objective seems to me relatively easy. If one publishes one's work and involves a wide variety of developers in it, no one is going to achieve exclusive power to create AGI. AGI is not like nuclear weapons, at least not if a software-on-commodity-hardware approach works (as I think it well). Commodity hardware only is required, programming skills are common, and math/cog-sci skills are not all *that* rare... -- Ben G -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alexander E. Richter Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 7:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [agi] An idea for promoting AI development. At 07:18 02.12.02 -0500, Ben wrote: Can one use military funding for early-stage AGI work and then somehow delimitarize one's research once it reaches a certain point? One can try, but will one succeed? They will squeeze you out, like Lillian Reynolds and Michael Brace in BRAINSTORM (1983) (Christopher Walken, Natalie Wood) cu Alex --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
