RE: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list?
I still prefer the type of filtering I suggested in my email you copied below. What somebody's assumptions are is not necessarily and indication of how interesting a given one of their posts would be to me. Someone who shares my assumptions could either make boring or interesting posts. If someone who has assumptions I normally disagree with makes a post that explains the disputed position really well, I would often be interested in hearing that. If there is a post about something I know nothing about, but a lot of people on the list think it is unusually important, I would probably want to read it. For example, I intuitively disagreed with the notion that SFI complexity doomed the Novamente/OpenCog approach, but I was interested in the initial arguments that said it would, until, over time, I found them all eith unconvincing or totally vague. But if somebody came up with a new argument that a people on the list I respected said was important that indicated that SFI complexity would make it impossible to design AGI from Novamente/OpenCog-like elements, I would be interested in reading it. Ed Porter -Original Message- From: David Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 1:57 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: RE: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list? I think I have a better idea. I believe the problem has to do with assumptions. If I have an AI system that assumes an AGI can be made without using the human model, most comments by people who believe the opposite aren't worth much. Instead of some helpful criticism of the AGI I might be proposing, people get into a pissing contest over the assumptions (basic beliefs that can't be proven one way or the other) instead of helpful information about the idea being discussed. My proposal is to use a link in our emails that states what assumptions that poster is using and then all valid comments must take those assumptions into account in their argument. This wouldn't stop discussion of those fundamental assumptions but it should stop people continuously talking past each other because they are using a different set of assumptions that further arguments are based on. I think I could make contributions to projects and ideas that I don't think will create an AGI but in thinking and discussing others ideas, it might spark some good ideas that could help me. If someone just wants to continually argue that AGI is impossible or even that certain ways of going about AGI are worthless, why not just keep it to yourself? We don't all have to agree on the best way of creating an AGI for this list to be useful. Just stating that something is wrong when almost everything we discuss hasn't been proven one way or the other isn't helpful. If some threads aren't interesting then don't read them. If we could set a ink to the assumptions for a thread and then comment using those assumptions, I think the content/noise ratio would be increased substantially. David Clark From: Ed Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August-03-08 1:19 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: RE: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list? I think my email about Richard has spurred some valuable discussion. Here is a proposal for how to make this list work better. Unfortunatly it would involve some web coding, something I am not sufficiently up to speed to do, or even to estimate exactly how much work it would require. The proposal is to have a participatory grading of posts. To adapt the system better to each user, a user could select whose gradings he or she wanted to use as a filter. Perhaps people could select under which of one or more topics one wanted to assign a post, to create a more forum like data base under which users could rank posts, or even extract of posts. Hopefully, ultimately there would even be a participatory method for cutting out the most worth while parts of the most worth while posts and crafting them in to a forum in which the entries under each topic would be participatorily ranked by user selectable rankings. To keep it as simple as possible for the coder, I would suggest is that if you read a post you like, you could just forward it with a 0 to 10 ranking to the email address of a web site that had a script to record the ranking, from whom it came, and perhaps suggestions as to under what subject matter they should go. People who had less time to read the list could go to a page on that web site, paste in a string of email addresses (perhaps followed by a weight) and the number of posts he is willing to see for a given time period, and the page would generate a corresponding list of posts. If no name were pasted in the weighting would be over all people who had forwarded emails. One could also do the same under any topic for any selected time period. People viewing the emails through this filtering site would also
Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list?
Yes we do. The willingness of some members (especially Loosemore) to engage in antisocial behavior is very counterproductive. Stefan On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Ed's email was a bit harsh, but not as harsh as many of Richard's (which are frequently full of language like fools, rubbish and so forth ...). Some of your emails have been pretty harsh in the past too. I would be willing to enforce a stronger code of politeness on this list if that is what the membership wants. I have been told before, in other contexts, that I tend to be overly tolerant of rude behavior. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Ben On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have never received any comparable emails regarding Ed Porter. I have posted such in the past on the list and had seriously been considering doing so again (and your e-mail inspired me to do so). Ed is abusive, plain and simple. There was no reason for this last thread that he started except to shout down Richard's criticisms. Personally, I have given up on posting content to this list. Some moderation is strongly suggested. If it includes banning me -- so be it. Mark - Original Message - *From:* Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* agi@v2.listbox.com *Sent:* Saturday, August 02, 2008 10:29 PM *Subject:* **SPAM** Re: [agi] EVIDENCE RICHARD DOES NOT UNDERSTAND COMPLEX SYSTEM ISSUES THAT WELL Richard, FYI, I find that I agree in essence with nearly all of Ed Porter's assertions on scientific and technical issues, although I sometimes think he overstates things or words things in an inexact way. Also, I note that over the last couple years I have received a number (maybe 5-10) of emails from various individuals suggesting that you be banned from this email list for general unproductive trolling behavior. I have never received any comparable emails regarding Ed Porter. Anyway I don't personally have much patience for these overheated email battles, though I accept that they're part of the culture of email lists. I think your views are largely plausible and respectable, though I find you also tend to overstate things, and you sometimes implicitly redefine common terms in uncommon ways which I find frustrating. However, I find it irritating that you diss other people (like me!) so severely for guiding their research based on their own scientific intuition, yet display such a dramatic level of confidence (IMO overconfidence) in your own scientific intuition. AGI is a frontier area where as yet little is solidly known, so knowledgeable and intelligent experts can be expected to have different intuitions. You seem distressingly unwilling to agree to disagree, instead recurrently expressing negative emotion toward those whose not-fully-substantiated intuitions differ too much from your own not-fully-substantiated intuitions. It's boring, even more than it's frustrating. And I'm feeling like a butthead for wasting my time writing this email ;-p ben On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Ed, do you not remember making this accusation once before, and asking for people to step forward to support you? On that occasion you had a sum total of ZERO people come forward with evidence or support for your accusations, and on the other hand you did get some people who said that I had been honest, technically accurate, willing to admit mistakes, never gratuitously insulting and always ready to take the time to address any questions in a prompt and thorough manner. Does it not matter to you that you failed on that previous occasion? How many times will you repeat this before giving up? Now, under other circumstances I would ask you to provide some evidence for these allegations, and then I'd take some time to examine that evidence with you. However, my previous experience of examining your accusations is that your comprehension of the subject is so poor that you quickly tangle yourself up in a confusing web of red herrings, non sequiteurs and outright falsehoods, and then you jump out of the wreckage of the discussion holding a piece of abject nonsense in your fist, screaming Victory! I have proved him wrong!. When you have done that in the past, there has been nothing left for I and the other sensible people on this list to do except shake our heads and give up trying to explain anything to you. Consult an outside expert, if you dare. You will get an unpleasant surprise. Richard Loosemore Ed Porter wrote: Richard, I don't think any person on this list has been as insulting of the ideas of others as much you. You routinely describe other people's ideas as rubbish or in similarly contemptuous terms, often with no clear justification, and often when those you insult have not been previously insulting you. So you have no
Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list?
2008/8/3 Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Anyone else have an opinion on this? Also, can we limit the use of capitalization (aka shouting). There may be rare circumstances under which this is necessary, but most of the time it seems to be used gratuitously. - Bob --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list?
I don't notice rudeness so much, but content-free posts (and posters who don't learn) are a problem on this list. Low signal-to-noise ratio. I'd say you are too tolerant in avoiding moderation, but moderation is needed for content, not just politeness. Normally I try to avoid me too posts -- but for those who felt my last e-mail was too long, this is the essence of my argument (and very well expressed). - Original Message - From: Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 8:25 AM Subject: Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list? On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Ed's email was a bit harsh, but not as harsh as many of Richard's (which are frequently full of language like fools, rubbish and so forth ...). Some of your emails have been pretty harsh in the past too. I would be willing to enforce a stronger code of politeness on this list if that is what the membership wants. I have been told before, in other contexts, that I tend to be overly tolerant of rude behavior. Anyone else have an opinion on this? I don't notice rudeness so much, but content-free posts (and posters who don't learn) are a problem on this list. Low signal-to-noise ratio. I'd say you are too tolerant in avoiding moderation, but moderation is needed for content, not just politeness. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list?
Richard, I will not take time to statistically analyze your history of email posts. My prior message, to which you take exception, represents my subjective impression based on years of reading your posts. As a human being, I frequently find reading your posts an unpleasant experience, not because of the contents (even though I often disagree with them) but because of the emotional tone. I know that many others ... but certainly not all others ... feel the time way. But I just don't have time available to extensively discuss or analyze these matters. ben On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 12:46 AM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Ben Goertzel wrote: I think Ed's email was a bit harsh, but not as harsh as many of Richard's (which are frequently full of language like fools, rubbish and so forth ...). I am sorry: I am not going to stand by and let you make accusations without substantiating them. Find evidence for what you just alleged. Specifically, find the proportion of language like fools, rubbish, etc.. in my writings and in Ed Porter's. I used the word fools deliberately earlier, to describe a general category of people who are (a) ignorant of the technical subject but also (b) abusive and dogmatic and wrong, when mounting attacks against me. That was one of the rare occasions when I would use such language, but it was directed against a category, not an individual. It was also accurate, and I stand by it. This is yet another example of you making off-the-cuff accusations against me, which are a gross distortion of the truth, that, I believe, you cannot substantiate. If you are not able, or are too busy, to back up the allegation, withdraw it. Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome - Dr Samuel Johnson --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list?
Hi, Here are a couple random responses to suggestions by others within this thread... Nesov wrote, and Mark Waser concurred: I don't notice rudeness so much, but content-free posts (and posters who don't learn) are a problem on this list. Low signal-to-noise ratio. I'd say you are too tolerant in avoiding moderation, but moderation is needed for content, not just politeness. My response is that -- Moderation for politeness, and for *form* of posts, is fairly easy to do in an objective way -- Moderation for content is a lot more subjective, and I don't want to be perceived as imposing my own particular views on AGI on this mailing list. So I'm a bit wary of this. Hector suggested What about also some minimal credentials (not necessarily academical achievements but a minimal proof of knowledge and logical thought) as it is required at other mailing lists... However, it seems to me that the most boring, repetitive and irritating conversations on this list generally involve individuals who *do* have above minimal credentials in AGI. The only exception I can think of would be some of the repetitive conversations involving Mike Tintner, who isn't professionally experienced in AGI or directly related fields of science so far as I know (though I could be wrong) I do think that this list has recently become dominated by long, somewhat repetitive arguments between a relatively small number of people. I myself have stopped reading or posting very much partly because of this, even though I'm the list administrator... Ben On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't notice rudeness so much, but content-free posts (and posters who don't learn) are a problem on this list. Low signal-to-noise ratio. I'd say you are too tolerant in avoiding moderation, but moderation is needed for content, not just politeness. Normally I try to avoid me too posts -- but for those who felt my last e-mail was too long, this is the essence of my argument (and very well expressed). - Original Message - From: Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 8:25 AM Subject: Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list? On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Ed's email was a bit harsh, but not as harsh as many of Richard's (which are frequently full of language like fools, rubbish and so forth ...). Some of your emails have been pretty harsh in the past too. I would be willing to enforce a stronger code of politeness on this list if that is what the membership wants. I have been told before, in other contexts, that I tend to be overly tolerant of rude behavior. Anyone else have an opinion on this? I don't notice rudeness so much, but content-free posts (and posters who don't learn) are a problem on this list. Low signal-to-noise ratio. I'd say you are too tolerant in avoiding moderation, but moderation is needed for content, not just politeness. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome - Dr Samuel Johnson --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list?
I used to think that critical attacks on a person's general thinking were reasonable, but I have found that the best way to reduce the most hostile and intolerant comments is to be overly objective and refrain from making any personal comments at all. Unfortunately, I have found that you have to refrain from making friendly or shared-experience kinds of remarks as well in order to use this method to effectively reduce the dullest sort of personal attacks and the grossest exaggerations. The best method of bringing the conversation to a higher level is to get as many people as possible to refrain from sinking to the lower levels. Some of the most intolerant remarks that I received from a few people in this group were for remarks where I said that I thought that there was a chance that I might have received some divine guidance on a logical SAT project that I was working on. At one point, to the best of my recollection, Ben Goertzel made the statement that since a polynomial time SAT was impossible, discussion of polynomial time methods of SAT would be banned from the group! Since polynomial time vs non-polynomial time SAT is famously unprovable, Ben's remark seemed a little presumptive for someone who was at the time justifying a negative reaction toward my statements of a possible personal religious experience. The expression of one's religious beliefs is not strongly related to the study of AI, but the study of beliefs is. I feel that my presentation of my the issue, of the possibility that the Lord had actually become involved with a study of an extremely challenging AI related problem was relevant because the study of God cannot be done through the conventional science that only sees faith or imagination as being in direct opposition to it. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God by discovering a resolution of the p vs np problem, but you can examine the nature of religious experience of a person who is working on the problem. Some conjectures do not yet reduce to repeatable experiments because they first need further refinement and an objective appreciation of the frame and nature of the kinds of experiments which would be required to examine them scientifically. We all have the ability to help and guide each other toward achieving our personal goals while improving our social skills at the same time. It's not rocket science. Jim Bromer --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list?
Vladimir Nesov wrote: On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Ed's email was a bit harsh, but not as harsh as many of Richard's (which are frequently full of language like fools, rubbish and so forth ...). Some of your emails have been pretty harsh in the past too. I would be willing to enforce a stronger code of politeness on this list if that is what the membership wants. I have been told before, in other contexts, that I tend to be overly tolerant of rude behavior. Anyone else have an opinion on this? I don't notice rudeness so much, but content-free posts (and posters who don't learn) are a problem on this list. Low signal-to-noise ratio. I'd say you are too tolerant in avoiding moderation, but moderation is needed for content, not just politeness. Moderation for content is a hard problem. E.g., different people come to different decisions about what it useful content. Should posts be limited to algorithms and sample programs (with minimal explication)? Justify your answer. Basically, there's no mechanical or semi-mechanical way to come to even an approximation of limiting by content except either: 1) a person dedicated to screening. People *do* have opinions as to what is useful content, even if they disagree. 2) a closed list. Only a few people are allowed to post. Privilege revocable easily. Frequent warnings. Those both require LOTS of management, and tend to foster rigid attitudes. I, too, would like to see more substantive posts...but I'm not sure that an e-mail list is the place to look. A website where anyone could start a blog about any thesis that they have WRT AGI would seem more reasonable. Something like a highly focused Slashdot, only instead of keying off news articles it would key off of papers that were submitted. But again, that, too, would require lots of human investment, even if I feel it *would* be a more productive investment (if you could entice people to write the papers). --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list?
I have read the SL4 list for at least 7 years and the snipper based moderation has more to do with who you are, rather than what you post. If you are not one of the choosen, then almost anything you say can and will be used to justify it not being an SL4 level topic. (The list has been quite slow for quite a while now and the snipers have been snoozing for just as long so I am referring to when the SL4 list had 50 plus emails a day) I would rather delete the posts I don't find interesting than be snipped, as many posts used to be on SL4. -- David Clark -Original Message- From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August-03-08 11:25 AM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list? I think the sniper based moderation policy for SL4 works pretty well and might be appropriate for this list. http://www.sl4.org/intro.html -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; f491a0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list?
Just to throw my 2 cents in here. The short version: if you want to improve the list, look to yourself. Don't rely on moderation. If you have something worth posting, post it without fear of rude responses. If people are rude, don't be rude back. Resist the urge to fire off the quick reply and score points (I often write the inflammatory reply and then delete it, just to get it out of my system). Don't feed the trolls. Thicken your skin: see personal attacks for what they are - refuge for someone without a reasonable rebuttal. I've been participating in online forums of various sorts basically since the internet began in earnest and there is nothing unique about the behavior here. People are rude. The anonymity and discorporate nature of virtual communication lowers inhibitions in a big way. Moderation for anything but clear-cut violations of established rules is almost never helpful because it either stifles discussion or the forum devolves into trials about the fairness of the moderation. Moderation based on subjective quality of content is a terrible idea, imo. I would never agree to moderate a forum based on anything but etiquette or on-topic-ness. Assuming the rules are spelled out and warnings are given and behavior is enforced fairly and consistently, moderation can help. But it takes a fairly proactive moderator to do all that. Terren --- On Sun, 8/3/08, Harry Chesley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Harry Chesley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list? To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Sunday, August 3, 2008, 12:52 PM I have never posted to the list before for exactly the reasons under discussion. It seems to me that the list is dominated, in terms of volume, not, I think, in terms of people, by two types of posts: 1) You don't understand theory x, which explains why your idea or approach is unworkable; you need to spend hours (perhaps days) reading about that (my) theory. Or 2) You're an idiot and your ideas are trash. I am pursuing a line of research that I believe has potential. It would be useful to have a place I could float ideas and get some feedback. While I'm not particularly thin skinned, I don't have the time to deal with excursions into entirely different theories or to deal with the distractive emotional baggage that's so common here. I would also be happy to provide feedback to posts by others, but I don't want to get dragged into heated and often content-sparse threads of discussion. I have seen very good and productive threads on this list, but they tend to be the exception. Hence I mostly just delete the items from the list, and follow the occasional thread that looks interesting or involves people who have posted more reasonable items in the past. As with most lists, 90% of the content is generated by 10% of the members. In this case, that involves much unnecessary distraction and unpleasantness. Giving posters time outs for personal attacks might go a long way toward calming the list down and encouraging some of the people like me to become more involved. Also, a list FAQ that includes pointers to some of the theories that get repeated endlessly, together with encouragement to the posters to just post the FAQ's URL rather than repeating the entire theory, might reduce the repetition. (Wasn't there a wiki area exactly for that started a while ago?) Anyway, that's my two cents. On 8/3/2008 6:13 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote: Hi, Here are a couple random responses to suggestions by others within this thread... Nesov wrote, and Mark Waser concurred: I don't notice rudeness so much, but content-free posts (and posters who don't learn) are a problem on this list. Low signal-to-noise ratio. I'd say you are too tolerant in avoiding moderation, but moderation is needed for content, not just politeness. My response is that -- Moderation for politeness, and for *form* of posts, is fairly easy to do in an objective way -- Moderation for content is a lot more subjective, and I don't want to be perceived as imposing my own particular views on AGI on this mailing list. So I'm a bit wary of this. Hector suggested What about also some minimal credentials (not necessarily academical achievements but a minimal proof of knowledge and logical thought) as it is required at other mailing lists... However, it seems to me that the most boring, repetitive and irritating conversations on this list generally involve individuals who *do* have above minimal credentials in AGI. The only exception I can think of would be some of the repetitive conversations involving Mike Tintner, who isn't professionally experienced in AGI or directly related fields of science so far as I know (though I could be wrong) I do think that this list has recently
Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list?
Yes, I was a member of the SL4 list in its glory days ... and as I recall the sniping had its plusses and minuses. It did cut off some useless and irrelevant threads, which was good. On the other hand, I felt it was often used in an overenthusiastic and nonoptimally-biased way, which sometimes squelched views dissenting from those of the list owner and his close collaborators. I note that I was never or almost never sniped on that list, so my opinion here is not a matter of personal resentment... There were some really great SL4 threads back in the day, among all the noise, but that really wasn't due to the sniping, it was more a matter of who was active on the list at that particular time, and where they were in their relevant processes of idea-development... Anyway I don't condemn the sniping approach but it's not really my vision of the AGI list. On the OpenCog list I am following more of a sniping-type approach, in that I'm sniping threads that are not directly relevant to the details of OpenCog-based AGI development. But that list is intended to be more focused, whereas this one is intended to be more inclusive. -- Ben On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 2:32 PM, David Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I have read the SL4 list for at least 7 years and the snipper based moderation has more to do with who you are, rather than what you post. If you are not one of the choosen, then almost anything you say can and will be used to justify it not being an SL4 level topic. (The list has been quite slow for quite a while now and the snipers have been snoozing for just as long so I am referring to when the SL4 list had 50 plus emails a day) I would rather delete the posts I don't find interesting than be snipped, as many posts used to be on SL4. -- David Clark -Original Message- From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August-03-08 11:25 AM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list? I think the sniper based moderation policy for SL4 works pretty well and might be appropriate for this list. http://www.sl4.org/intro.html -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; f491a0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome - Dr Samuel Johnson --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list?
In my experience, online communities are like offline communities, their tone and spirit depends on their members. Moderation seldom fixes anything, and content-based moderation only works if the community is intended to reflect the ideas and values of the moderator. But sometimes a respected moderator (and I think Ben is very respected here) can act as a sort of father figure, encouraging a particular style of interaction. I have been a member of many online communities where the interactions were friendly, supportive, and productive, where negative language and attitude was the rare exception. So I don't think that style of interaction *has* to be there. It may be that I just need to keep looking for such a community of AI researchers. I sure hope it isn't inherent in AI work itself -- though the intellectually abstract and scientifically unsettled aspects of it do make it is the sort of field that can attract people who believe they know more than they do and who are insecure enough to need to disparage others around them. (Personally, I'm not at all sure I know anything, as I've found it's an area where I can *so* easily fool myself; and I believe that virtually anyone's approach on this list *might* be of great value.) (Credentials: I've been involved in online communities since the '70s, occasionally working as an expert in the field, most recently as manager of the Social Computing Group at Microsoft Research, which I left in 2001 to work on AI.) Terren Suydam wrote: Just to throw my 2 cents in here. The short version: if you want to improve the list, look to yourself. Don't rely on moderation. If you have something worth posting, post it without fear of rude responses. If people are rude, don't be rude back. Resist the urge to fire off the quick reply and score points (I often write the inflammatory reply and then delete it, just to get it out of my system). Don't feed the trolls. Thicken your skin: see personal attacks for what they are - refuge for someone without a reasonable rebuttal. I've been participating in online forums of various sorts basically since the internet began in earnest and there is nothing unique about the behavior here. People are rude. The anonymity and discorporate nature of virtual communication lowers inhibitions in a big way. Moderation for anything but clear-cut violations of established rules is almost never helpful because it either stifles discussion or the forum devolves into trials about the fairness of the moderation. Moderation based on subjective quality of content is a terrible idea, imo. I would never agree to moderate a forum based on anything but etiquette or on-topic-ness. Assuming the rules are spelled out and warnings are given and behavior is enforced fairly and consistently, moderation can help. But it takes a fairly proactive moderator to do all that. Terren --- On Sun, 8/3/08, Harry Chesley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Harry Chesley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list? To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Sunday, August 3, 2008, 12:52 PM I have never posted to the list before for exactly the reasons under discussion. It seems to me that the list is dominated, in terms of volume, not, I think, in terms of people, by two types of posts: 1) You don't understand theory x, which explains why your idea or approach is unworkable; you need to spend hours (perhaps days) reading about that (my) theory. Or 2) You're an idiot and your ideas are trash. I am pursuing a line of research that I believe has potential. It would be useful to have a place I could float ideas and get some feedback. While I'm not particularly thin skinned, I don't have the time to deal with excursions into entirely different theories or to deal with the distractive emotional baggage that's so common here. I would also be happy to provide feedback to posts by others, but I don't want to get dragged into heated and often content-sparse threads of discussion. I have seen very good and productive threads on this list, but they tend to be the exception. Hence I mostly just delete the items from the list, and follow the occasional thread that looks interesting or involves people who have posted more reasonable items in the past. As with most lists, 90% of the content is generated by 10% of the members. In this case, that involves much unnecessary distraction and unpleasantness. Giving posters time outs for personal attacks might go a long way toward calming the list down and encouraging some of the people like me to become more involved. Also, a list FAQ that includes pointers to some of the theories that get repeated endlessly, together with encouragement to the posters to just post the FAQ's URL rather than repeating the entire theory, might reduce the repetition. (Wasn't there a wiki area exactly for that started a while ago?) Anyway, that's my two cents
P.S.; Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list?
Charles Hixson wrote: Vladimir Nesov wrote: On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Ed's email was a bit harsh, but not as harsh as many of Richard's (which are frequently full of language like fools, rubbish and so forth ...). Some of your emails have been pretty harsh in the past too. I would be willing to enforce a stronger code of politeness on this list if that is what the membership wants. I have been told before, in other contexts, that I tend to be overly tolerant of rude behavior. Anyone else have an opinion on this? I don't notice rudeness so much, but content-free posts (and posters who don't learn) are a problem on this list. Low signal-to-noise ratio. I'd say you are too tolerant in avoiding moderation, but moderation is needed for content, not just politeness. Moderation for content is a hard problem. E.g., different people come to different decisions about what it useful content. Should posts be limited to algorithms and sample programs (with minimal explication)? Justify your answer. Basically, there's no mechanical or semi-mechanical way to come to even an approximation of limiting by content except either: 1) a person dedicated to screening. People *do* have opinions as to what is useful content, even if they disagree. 2) a closed list. Only a few people are allowed to post. Privilege revocable easily. Frequent warnings. Those both require LOTS of management, and tend to foster rigid attitudes. I, too, would like to see more substantive posts...but I'm not sure that an e-mail list is the place to look. A website where anyone could start a blog about any thesis that they have WRT AGI would seem more reasonable. Something like a highly focused Slashdot, only instead of keying off news articles it would key off of papers that were submitted. But again, that, too, would require lots of human investment, even if I feel it *would* be a more productive investment (if you could entice people to write the papers). A part of what this would facilitate is organization of material by subject. Another part is a place to post idea pieces that are more than just e-mails. This *isn't* a replacement for an e-mail list. It *does* require organization by subject at a higher level. Probably a lattice organization would be best, but also searchable key words. Does such a thing exist? Probably not. That means that someone would need to put in a substantial amount of time both organizing it and writing scripts. And it would need a moderation system (ala slashdot). So it's a substantial amount of work. This means I don't expect it to happen. Independent fora aren't the same thing, though they have a partial overlap. So do wiki. (Wiki may be closer, but the original article shouldn't be modifiable, only commentable upon.) Note that it's very important for this to do the job that I'm proposing that comments be moderated and the moderators be meta-moderated. These articles are seen as being available for a long time, and significant comments, ammendments, and additions need to be easy to locate. I'm seeing this as a kind of an textbook, kind of an encyclopedia, kind of an... well, make up your own mind. (And, as I said, it's probably too much work for this community. Most of us have other projects. But it would be a great thing at, say, a university. Might be a reasonable project for someone in CS.) --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list?
Ben With my extensive training as a mediation counselor let me suggest my own newly developed Mediation System Technology as an aide to making such decisions concerning politeness... (which also enjoys certain applications to a guaranteed friendly AGI) This system is based upon a primary complement of instinctual behavioral terms (rewards-leniency-appetite-aversion), therefore not reliant upon any sort of restrictive religious baggage... This elementary instinctual foundation, in turn, extends to a multi-level hierarchy of the traditional groupings of virtues, values, and ideals, collectively arranged as subsets within a hierarchy of metaperspectives - as partially depicted below. Solicitousness . Rewards . Submissiveness . Leniency Nostalgia . Worship . Guilt . Blame Glory . Prudence . Honor . Justice Providence . Faith ... Liberty . Hope Grace . Beauty . Free-will . Truth Tranquility . Ecstasy Equality . Bliss Appetite . + Reinforcement Aversion . Neg. Reinforcement Desire . Approval ... Worry . Concern Dignity . Temperance ... Integrity . Fortitude Civility . Charity ... Austerity . Decency Magnanimity . Goodness . Equanimity . Wisdom Love . Joy .. Peace . Harmony A similar pattern further extends to the contrasting behavioral paradigm of punishment, resulting in a parallel hierarchy of the major categories of the vices. Here rewards / leniency is withheld rather than bestowed in response to actions judged not to be suitably solicitous or submissive (as depicted in the diagram below). This format contrasts point-for-point with the respective virtuous mode (the actual system encompasses 320 individual terms). No Solicitousness . No Rewards . No Submissiveness . No Leniency Laziness . Treachery ... Negligence . Vindictiveness Infamy . Insurgency. Dishonor . Vengeance Prodigality . Betrayal.Slavery . Despair Wrath . Ugliness...Tyranny . Hypocrisy Anger . Abomination.Prejudice . Perdition No Appetite . Punishment. No Aversion . - Punishment Apathy . Spite ... Indifference . Malice Foolishness . Gluttony.Caprice . Cowardice Vulgarity . Avarice...Cruelty . Antagonism Oppression . Evil.Persecution . Cunning Hatred . IniquityBelligerence . Turpitude The basic strategy involves turning negative transactions into positive ones, while aiming to prevent the reverse reaction. With such ethical safeguards firmly in place, the friendly AGI computer is similarly prohibited from expressing the corresponding realm of the vices, allowing for a truly flawless simulation of virtue -- a computer one could implicitly trust... Cordially John E. LaMuth http://www.ethicalvalues.com www.charactervalues.org - Original Message - From: Ben Goertzel To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 8:47 PM Subject: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list? I would be willing to enforce a stronger code of politeness on this list if that is what the membership wants. I have been told before, in other contexts, that I tend to be overly tolerant of rude behavior. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Ben --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list?
I would be willing to enforce a stronger code of politeness on this list if that is what the membership wants. I have been told before, in other contexts, that I tend to be overly tolerant of rude behavior. Anyone else have an opinion on this? I would be very happy with some simple (and very relaxed) policy that, possibly by technical means, prevents rude behaviour. My reason is not to improve the quality of the list - for this such a simple policy will surely not be enough - but for me to have a better time reading. In particular: - I hate reading posts that contain offensive wording: using such words is almost never needed for agi matters and irritates me. - I really hate top-posting and using overly long quotes from previous emails (like quoting a few threads back in full) because it makes it very hard to just skim through a thread I don't want to be involved in. With the number of posts to this list increasing recently, I think that some (not overly strong) technical policy is a good idea, especially for people like me who do not want to spend all too much time on this list. Lukasz --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list?
I seriously meant it to be a friendly statement. Obviously I expressed myself poorly. Jim Bromer On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Brad Paulsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This from the guy who only about three or four days ago responded to a post I made here by telling me to get a life. And, that was the sum-total of his comments. What's that smell?!? Ah, hypocrisy! Jim Bromer wrote: I used to think that critical attacks on a person's general thinking were reasonable, but I have found that the best way to reduce the most hostile and intolerant comments is to be overly objective and refrain from making any personal comments at all. Unfortunately, I have found that you have to refrain from making friendly or shared-experience kinds of remarks as well in order to use this method to effectively reduce the dullest sort of personal attacks and the grossest exaggerations. The best method of bringing the conversation to a higher level is to get as many people as possible to refrain from sinking to the lower levels. Some of the most intolerant remarks that I received from a few people in this group were for remarks where I said that I thought that there was a chance that I might have received some divine guidance on a logical SAT project that I was working on. At one point, to the best of my recollection, Ben Goertzel made the statement that since a polynomial time SAT was impossible, discussion of polynomial time methods of SAT would be banned from the group! Since polynomial time vs non-polynomial time SAT is famously unprovable, Ben's remark seemed a little presumptive for someone who was at the time justifying a negative reaction toward my statements of a possible personal religious experience. The expression of one's religious beliefs is not strongly related to the study of AI, but the study of beliefs is. I feel that my presentation of my the issue, of the possibility that the Lord had actually become involved with a study of an extremely challenging AI related problem was relevant because the study of God cannot be done through the conventional science that only sees faith or imagination as being in direct opposition to it. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God by discovering a resolution of the p vs np problem, but you can examine the nature of religious experience of a person who is working on the problem. Some conjectures do not yet reduce to repeatable experiments because they first need further refinement and an objective appreciation of the frame and nature of the kinds of experiments which would be required to examine them scientifically. We all have the ability to help and guide each other toward achieving our personal goals while improving our social skills at the same time. It's not rocket science. Jim Bromer --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list?
Jim Bromer, This post is not intended for you specifically, but for the entire group. I accept your apology. Peace. And now... Everybody, Gee, it seems like elitism and censorship are alive and well on the AGI list. I can't believe some of the stuff I've read in this thread. Much of this rhetoric is coming from people who have never posted (or, at least not recently posted) to this list. Some from the regulars. But, what is most worrisome to me is that these types of proposals are not being rejected forcefully and outright by the administrators/moderators of this list. I beg you all to consider the words of Thomas Jefferson: I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. Count to ten and, then, realize that each of us has the power to decide for ourselves which posts we read and to which posts we reply. The quickest way to get rid of the crackpots and trolls is to simply ignore them. Most of us use mail clients most of the time. My mail client (Thunderbird) allows me to set up powerful filters by which I can self-moderate this list quite well, thank you very much. I simply choose to not read posts from certain individuals. That way, my blood pressure stays as low as possible and I'm not tempted to reply. It only takes a few minutes to write a filter and even less time to update it. This can be done with most Web-based e-mail readers as well. The best part? My kill-list (so-called because the people on it are dead to me) does not affect any other list member. The people in it can keep posting here (I just never see those posts) and, therefore, any other list member can still read them. But, please, I'm begging you, do not let this list fall victim to the easy way out by banning certain individuals or topics before we, the list members, get a chance to see them. And, please, don't even consider any form of entrance exam or proof of intelligence. Cheers, Brad P.S. I'm also not in favor of disallowing emotive language. Here, again, if you don't like a particular poster's style, you can always kill-list them. Don't deprive me of the entertainment they often provide. Some people are just bombastic by nature. Scratch the surface and they turn out to be, guess what? Real human beings. With all the emotional baggage and over the top behavior that can bring. But, also with all of the emotional needs and insecurities. Sometimes we just need to cut people a little slack. Judge not lest you be judged. That kind of thing. P.P.S. I was interested to see the list posting analysis in which I was the second most frequent poster for July! I joined the AGI list (by invitation) on April 1, 2008. From then until June 1 (two months), I submitted just 19 posts (for an average of just 9.5 posts per month). The vast majority of those were informational (i.e., contained a headlines written by someone else with a link to the associated article but which I felt might be of interest to other list members). I didn't initiate a thread until late July. The vast majority of my posts in July were over a two-day period and were responses to comments I received from other list members. Just goes to show how misleading statistics can be. But what really gets me cheezed-off is that Loosemore got first place! :-) Jim Bromer wrote: I seriously meant it to be a friendly statement. Obviously I expressed myself poorly. Jim Bromer On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Brad Paulsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This from the guy who only about three or four days ago responded to a post I made here by telling me to get a life. And, that was the sum-total of his comments. What's that smell?!? Ah, hypocrisy! Jim Bromer wrote: I used to think that critical attacks on a person's general thinking were reasonable, but I have found that the best way to reduce the most hostile and intolerant comments is to be overly objective and refrain from making any personal comments at all. Unfortunately, I have found that you have to refrain from making friendly or shared-experience kinds of remarks as well in order to use this method to effectively reduce the dullest sort of personal attacks and the grossest exaggerations. The best method of bringing the conversation to a higher level is to get as many people as possible to refrain from sinking to the lower levels. Some of the most intolerant remarks that I received from a few people in this group were for remarks where I said that I thought that there was a chance that I might have received some divine guidance on a logical SAT project that I was working on. At one point, to the best of my recollection, Ben Goertzel made the statement that since a polynomial time SAT was impossible, discussion of polynomial time methods of SAT would be banned from the group! Since polynomial time vs non-polynomial time SAT is famously unprovable, Ben's remark seemed a
Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list?
I favor voluntary adoption of Crocker's Rules (explained at http://www.sl4.org/crocker.html more at http://www.google.com/search?q=crocker's+rules). -dave --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list?
I'm relatively new here, as I've only been reading for a couple of months, and I am hesitant to speak because the level of venom directed at others seems to be very high. I'd like it better if the hostility was toned down a lot. My personal opinion is that if as much energy was devoted to solving the problems as is devoted to arguing about them, we could accomplish a lot. Judith On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Ed's email was a bit harsh, but not as harsh as many of Richard's (which are frequently full of language like fools, rubbish and so forth ...). Some of your emails have been pretty harsh in the past too. I would be willing to enforce a stronger code of politeness on this list if that is what the membership wants. I have been told before, in other contexts, that I tend to be overly tolerant of rude behavior. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Ben On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have never received any comparable emails regarding Ed Porter. I have posted such in the past on the list and had seriously been considering doing so again (and your e-mail inspired me to do so). Ed is abusive, plain and simple. There was no reason for this last thread that he started except to shout down Richard's criticisms. Personally, I have given up on posting content to this list. Some moderation is strongly suggested. If it includes banning me -- so be it. Mark - Original Message - From: Ben Goertzel To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 10:29 PM Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] EVIDENCE RICHARD DOES NOT UNDERSTAND COMPLEX SYSTEM ISSUES THAT WELL Richard, FYI, I find that I agree in essence with nearly all of Ed Porter's assertions on scientific and technical issues, although I sometimes think he overstates things or words things in an inexact way. Also, I note that over the last couple years I have received a number (maybe 5-10) of emails from various individuals suggesting that you be banned from this email list for general unproductive trolling behavior. I have never received any comparable emails regarding Ed Porter. Anyway I don't personally have much patience for these overheated email battles, though I accept that they're part of the culture of email lists. I think your views are largely plausible and respectable, though I find you also tend to overstate things, and you sometimes implicitly redefine common terms in uncommon ways which I find frustrating. However, I find it irritating that you diss other people (like me!) so severely for guiding their research based on their own scientific intuition, yet display such a dramatic level of confidence (IMO overconfidence) in your own scientific intuition. AGI is a frontier area where as yet little is solidly known, so knowledgeable and intelligent experts can be expected to have different intuitions. You seem distressingly unwilling to agree to disagree, instead recurrently expressing negative emotion toward those whose not-fully-substantiated intuitions differ too much from your own not-fully-substantiated intuitions. It's boring, even more than it's frustrating. And I'm feeling like a butthead for wasting my time writing this email ;-p ben On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ed, do you not remember making this accusation once before, and asking for people to step forward to support you? On that occasion you had a sum total of ZERO people come forward with evidence or support for your accusations, and on the other hand you did get some people who said that I had been honest, technically accurate, willing to admit mistakes, never gratuitously insulting and always ready to take the time to address any questions in a prompt and thorough manner. Does it not matter to you that you failed on that previous occasion? How many times will you repeat this before giving up? Now, under other circumstances I would ask you to provide some evidence for these allegations, and then I'd take some time to examine that evidence with you. However, my previous experience of examining your accusations is that your comprehension of the subject is so poor that you quickly tangle yourself up in a confusing web of red herrings, non sequiteurs and outright falsehoods, and then you jump out of the wreckage of the discussion holding a piece of abject nonsense in your fist, screaming Victory! I have proved him wrong!. When you have done that in the past, there has been nothing left for I and the other sensible people on this list to do except shake our heads and give up trying to explain anything to you. Consult an outside expert, if you dare. You will get an unpleasant surprise. Richard Loosemore Ed Porter wrote: Richard, I don't think any person on this list has been as insulting of the ideas of others as much
Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger politeness code on this list?
Ben Goertzel wrote: I think Ed's email was a bit harsh, but not as harsh as many of Richard's (which are frequently full of language like fools, rubbish and so forth ...). I am sorry: I am not going to stand by and let you make accusations without substantiating them. Find evidence for what you just alleged. Specifically, find the proportion of language like fools, rubbish, etc.. in my writings and in Ed Porter's. I used the word fools deliberately earlier, to describe a general category of people who are (a) ignorant of the technical subject but also (b) abusive and dogmatic and wrong, when mounting attacks against me. That was one of the rare occasions when I would use such language, but it was directed against a category, not an individual. It was also accurate, and I stand by it. This is yet another example of you making off-the-cuff accusations against me, which are a gross distortion of the truth, that, I believe, you cannot substantiate. If you are not able, or are too busy, to back up the allegation, withdraw it. Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
