Well, if one of us becomes extremely successful biz-wise, but the other has
made some deep AI success, the one can always buy the other's company ;-)
Hey! If I become both extremely successful biz-wise *and* make some deep AI
success, can I give you the company and just make you pay me some
Certainly there are many ways to slay the beast. And the beast has many
definitions. For an open source AGI you'd have to not throw in the kitchen
sink, come up was a very basic design and maybe not tout how the thing is
going to trigger a singularity? Maybe not try to replicate human brain
On 6/13/07, Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
YKY, I think there are two better schemes for collaboration than the one
you've proposed:
-- the traditional for-profit company with equity and options based
compensation determined by a committee of trusted individuals
-- the
On 6/14/07, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even if YKY was to succeed in coming up with a new hybrid organizational
structure, which could likely happen as there are definitely opportunities
for innovation judging by existing structures, there still needs to be the
traditional open
Hi YKY,
The problem is that right now I'm not joining Novamente because I have some
different AGI ideas that you may not be willing to accept. And I don't
blame you for that. If I were to join NM, I'd like to make significant
modifications to it, or at least branch out from yours and to
I hardly think that's matter given that it's a truly a Singularity-class
AI.
Do you sit around calculating which of your grandparents deserves the most
credit for bringing you into being? No, you take care of them as they
need
it.
Thank you too, Josh -- maybe I was too cynical in thinking
A successful AI could do a superior job of dividing up the credit from
available historical records. (Anyone who doesn't spot this is not
thinking recursively.)
Yay! Thank you!
( . . . and to think that last night I decided to give up on the topic. But
don't worry, I'll still punt on it.
YKY,
I think that I'm going to take this opportunity to give up on this
conversation for the following reasons:
Come on, there're no obvious reasons for this complex issue.
I have to disagree. There *ARE* certain things that really should be obvious
if you get it.
To put it another
If you're not proposing a better scheme for collaboration, and you
criticize my scheme in a non-constructive way, then effectively you're just
saying that you're not interested in collaborating at all. And that's
kind of sad, given that we're still so far from AGI.
YKY, I think there are two
To organize average people to work together you have to give rewards.
Finally, I really, *really* don't believe this either (unless you want
to insist that the satisfaction of a challenge met or a job well done -- or
the warm fuzzy that you get when you help someone -- are rewards). You
don't
Overall measures are per-module as well, so a basic DB-access module would only
get 1% to distrubute to all its lines of code, as it has little originiailty
and is well known code.
Samantha Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No LOC based credit please. That
measure is totally bogus. Ten lines
Even if YKY was to succeed in coming up with a new hybrid organizational
structure, which could likely happen as there are definitely opportunities
for innovation judging by existing structures, there still needs to be the
traditional open source project that everybody and his brother(or sister)
On 6/12/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you think my scheme cannot be fair then the alternative of
traditional management can only be worse (in terms of fairness, which in
turn affects the quality of work being done). The situation is quite
analogous to that between a state-command
Board members will be nominated and elected by the entire group, and
hopefully we can find some academics who have reputation in certain areas of
AI, and are not contributors themselves. I tend to think that they will be
more judicious than other types of people.
Again, how is that
On 6/13/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A successful AI could do a superior job of dividing up the credit from
available historical records. (Anyone who doesn't spot this is not
thinking recursively.)
During the pre-AGI interim, people have got to make money and to enjoy
On 6/13/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wouldn't bother working with anyone who was seriously worried over
who got the credit for building a Singularity-class AI - no other
kind matters. There are two reasons for this, not just the obvious one.
Come on, there're no obvious
Has anyone tried a test of something as simple as per line of code / function?
Meaning that each function or module could have a % value associated with
it (set by many users average rating)
And then simply giving credit by line of code input.
Anyone writing cruddy long code would initially
Has anyone tried a test of something as simple as per line of code /
function?
My first official programming course was a Master's level course at an
Ivy League college. The course project was a full-up LISP interpreter. My
program was ~800-900 lines and passed all testing with flying
On Monday 11 June 2007 12:12:26 pm Mark Waser wrote:
... The last thing that I want to do is *anything* that encourages people
to write more code ...
The classic apocryphal story is of the shop where they had this fellow who was
an unbelievably productive programmer -- up until the day he
Monday, June 11, 2007, Mark Waser wrote:
MW The only scheme that I'd possibly accept based on lines of code
MW would be one where if someone else wrote a tighter program, the original
MW writer would get negative credit (i.e. something like
MW if they wrote 7,000 lines and I re-did it with
On 6/11/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry about the confusion. Let me correct by saying: it *is* to
your advantage to exaggerate your contributions, but your peers won't allow
it.
Cool.
I'll then move back to my other point that is probably better phrased as
I don't
An additional idea: each member's vote could be weighted by the
member's total amount of contributions. This way, we can establish a
network of genuine contributors via self-organization, and protect against
mischief-makers, nonsense, or sabotage, etc.
YKY
-
This list is sponsored by
Keep going ... won't be too long until you invent fungible tokens for your
people that act as a medium of exchange, a store of value, and a unit of
account.
On Monday 11 June 2007 07:22:46 pm YKY (Yan King Yin) wrote:
An additional idea: each member's vote could be weighted by the
member's
On 6/9/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Think: if you have contributed something, it'd be in your best
interest to give accurate estimates rather than exaggerate or depreciate
them
Why wouldn't it be to my advantage to exaggerate my contributions?
But your peers in the network won't
Obviously innovation comes from all walks of life, be they opensource or
commercial people. But some entrepreneurs are more capable of appropriating
their inventions, eg Edison did *not* invent the light bulb, but he got
famous for commercializing and patenting it. Many people simply don't have
YKY Think: if you have contributed something, it'd be in your best interest
to give accurate estimates rather than exaggerate or depreciate them
MW Why wouldn't it be to my advantage to exaggerate my contributions?
YKY But your peers in the network won't allow that.
That is an entirely
On 6/10/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
YKY Think: if you have contributed something, it'd be in your best
interest to give accurate estimates rather than exaggerate or depreciate
them
MW Why wouldn't it be to my advantage to exaggerate my contributions?
YKY But your peers in the
: Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] AGI Consortium
On 6/10/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
YKY Think: if you have contributed something, it'd be in your best
interest to give accurate estimates rather than exaggerate or depreciate them
MW Why wouldn't
On 6/11/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm going to temporarily ignore my doubts about accurate assessments
to try to get my initial question answered yet again.
Why wouldn't it be to my advantage to exaggerate my contributions?
I'm sorry about the confusion. Let me
Subject: Re: [agi] AGI Consortium
On 6/11/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm going to temporarily ignore my doubts about accurate assessments to
try to get my initial question answered yet again.
Why wouldn't it be to my advantage to exaggerate my contributions
Think: if you have contributed something, it'd be in your best interest to
give accurate estimates rather than exaggerate or depreciate them
Why wouldn't it be to my advantage to exaggerate my contributions?
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or
On 6/9/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...Same goes for most software developed by this method–almost
all the great open source apps are me-too knockoffs of innovative
proprietary programs, and those that are original were almost always created
under the watchful eye of a passionate,
On 6/8/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are never going to see a painting by committee that is a great
painting.
And he's right. This was Sterling's indictment of Wikipedia–and to the
wisdom of crowds fad sweeping the Web 2.0 pitch sessions of Silicon
Valley–but it's also a fair
On 6/8/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, it should be On 6/8/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] quoted
someone else as saying:
I don't agree with Sterling's indictment of Wikipedia since I don't believe
that a relatively unified vision is necessary for it. I do, however,
On Friday 08 June 2007 08:21:28 am Mark Waser wrote:
Opening your project up to an unreliable parade of volunteer contributors
allows for a great, lowest-common-denominator consensus product. That's fine
for Wikipedia, but I wouldn't count on any grand intellectual discourse
arising therein.
On 6/8/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is basically right. There are plenty of innovative Open Source programs
out there, but they are typically some academic's thesis work. Being Open
Source can allow them to be turned into solid usable applications, but it
can't create
I noticed a serious problem with credit attribution and allowing members
to branch outside of the mother project.
For example, there may be a collection of contributions, from many members,
that is worth $C in the consortium. Suppose someone decides to start an
external project, then adding $c
Sure. Successful and innovative aren't the same thing -- in fact, they're
often at odds. The best versions of something from the point of polish and
usability generally come after lots of hard experience with its earlier
versions.
Bell Labs, where Unix came from originally, was very
Really Open Source software projects almost never have a total open door
policy on the contributions that are accepted. There is usually a small
group that determines whether contributed changes are good enough and fit
the overall project goals and architecture well enough.
Wikipedia is one of
Well-said Samantha :-)
On a different note: something YKY and Mark may want to read about a
possible approach to running a new AGI consortium: eXtreme Research. A
software methodology for applied research: eXtreme Researching vy
Olivier Chirouze, David Cleary and George G. Mitchell (Software.
On 6/8/07, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I noticed a serious problem with credit attribution and allowing members
to branch outside of the mother project.
For example, there may be a collection of contributions, from many
members, that is worth $C in the consortium. Suppose
41 matches
Mail list logo
