Matt.
On 10/20/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The singularity list is probably more appropriate for philosophical
discussions about AGI.
Only those discussions that relate AGI to singularity.
Another one for Ben's list:
*Basic Economic Feasibility: It has been proposed that
Just an idea - not sure if it would work or not - 3 lists: [AGI-1], [AGI-2],
[AGI-3]. Sub-content is determined by the posters themselves. Same amount of
emails initially but partitioned up.
Wonder what would happen?
John
---
agi
Archives:
Samantha,
On 10/19/08, Samantha Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This sounds good to me. I am much more drawn to topic #1. Topic #2 I have
seen discussed recursively and in dozens of variants multiple places. The
only thing I will add to Topic #2 is that I very seriously doubt current
The singularity list is probably more appropriate for philosophical discussions
about AGI. But good luck on moving such discussions to that list or a new list.
Philosophical arguments usually result from different interpretations of what
words mean. But usually the people doing the arguing
This sounds good to me. I am much more drawn to topic #1. Topic #2 I
have seen discussed recursively and in dozens of variants multiple
places. The only thing I will add to Topic #2 is that I very seriously
doubt current human intelligence individually or collectively is
sufficient to
Ben,
First, note that I do NOT fall into the group that says that you can't
engineer digital AGI. However, I DO believe that present puny computers are
not up to the task, and some additional specific research (that I have
previously written about here) needs to be done before programming can be
Steve,
Ignoring your overheated invective, I will make one more attempt to address
your objections. **If and only if** you will be so kind as to summarize
them in a compact form in a single email. If you give me a numbered list
of your objections against my approach to AGI and other similar
From: Eric Burton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Honestly, if the idea is to wave our hands at one another's ideas then
let's at least see something on the table. I'm happy to discuss my
work with natural language parsing and mood evaluation for
low-bandwidth human mimicry, for instance, because
I'm also bored of type 2 discussions, which makes me read less of the
important topics as well...
Mark
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I have been thinking a bit about the nature of conversations on this list.
It seems to me there are two
I'll vote for the split, but I'm concerned about exactly where the
line is drawn.
--Abram
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I have been thinking a bit about the nature of conversations on this list.
It seems to me there are two types of
Indeed that is an issue...
I appreciate the input from y'all on this topic ... now I'm going to let the
responses settle in my brain for a week or so ;-)
The nice thing, of course, is that the list has accumulated a community of
people who are passionate and thoughtful about AGI issues. That is
I completely agree that puzzles can be ever so much more interesting when
you can successfully ignore that they cannot possibly lead to anything
useful. Further, people who point out the reasons that they cannot succeed
are really boors and should be censored. This entire thread should be
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Colin,
There's a difference between
1)
Discussing in detail how you're going to build a non-digital-computer
based AGI
2)
Presenting general, hand-wavy theoretical ideas as to why
digital-computer-based AGI can't work
I would be vastly more interested in 1 than 2 ...
I emphatically agree. I want to see intelligent targeted discussion of AGI.
Actually, I wouldn't mind the is AGI possible discussion if it was smart
and focused, but I think that narrowing the topic would increase the
quality.
Joshua
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 11:01 AM
Hi all,
I have been thinking a bit about the nature of conversations on this list.
It seems
--- On *Wed, 10/15/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]* wrote:
From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 11:01 AM
Hi all,
I have been thinking a bit about the nature
PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Terren Suydam [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 11:29 AM
Hi Ben,
I think that the current focus has its pros and cons and the more narrowed
focus you suggest would have
On 10/15/2008 8:01 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
What are your thoughts on this?
A narrower focus of the list would be better for me personally.
I've been convinced for a long time that computer-based AGI is possible,
and am working toward it. As such, I'm no longer interested in arguments
about
I almost never bother to read the list these days, but by coincidence I
happened to take a look and discovered the below post. Since the
complex systems problem is mentioned, I feel obliged to respond.
The below suggestion is a perfect illustration of why I have given up on
the list: it
On 10/15/2008 08:01 AM,, Ben Goertzel wrote:
...
It seems to me there are two types of conversations here:
1)
Discussions of how to design or engineer AGI systems, using current
computers, according to designs that can feasibly be implemented by
moderately-sized groups of people
2)
I do a lot of lurking around here, I read about 60% of what is posted and I
would definitely love to see more engineering-specific content. I myself am
working on a pet theory and have a substantial amount of code written... so
to me, anything testable, downloadable, and provable hits a good chord
2008/10/15 Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What are your thoughts on this?
I, for one, would welcome more Type 1s and fewer Type 2s.
I realize, having observed AI related forums and lists for longer than
I care to admit, that Type 2s constitute the principle mass of the
gossip distribution.
actively involved in AGI
research.
Best,
Terren
--- On *Wed, 10/15/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]* wrote:
From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 11:01 AM
Hi all,
I have
Ben, et al,
Those who have been in the computer biz for more than just a few years know
for a moral certainty that the difference between successful and failed
projects very often lies in the feasibility study. Further, most of the
largest computer debacles in history had early objectors on
Richard,
One of the mental practices I learned while trying to save my first marriage
(an effort that ultimately failed) was: when criticized, rather than
reacting emotionally, to analytically reflect on whether the criticism is
valid. If it's valid, then I accept it and evaluate it I should
forum as well.
--- On *Wed, 10/15/08, Terren Suydam [EMAIL PROTECTED]* wrote:
From: Terren Suydam [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 11:29 AM
Hi Ben,
I think that the current focus has its
By the way, I'm avoiding responding to this thread till a little time has
passed and a larger number of lurkers have had time to pipe up if they wish
to...
ben
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/10/15 Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What are your
Certain aspects of agi-philosophy are of course fascinating. For
instance, I've always been pretty much obsessed with the hard
problem of qualia (why is red red ?, etc.). However, I feel most of
these aspects are not crucial to building an AGI with computers. I
agree therefore with the
I at least glance at all posts but prefer to read, write and otherwise
participate in those which:
discuss how to design or engineer AGI systems, using current
computers, according to designs that can feasibly be implemented by
moderately-sized groups of people
That's why I came over from
I'm in the same situation as Joseph and I agree with him. I think almost
everything mailed here is useful in some way, but a division would be fine
so we can focus on what is more important to us.
=
Rafael C.P.
=
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Joseph Henry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
One possibility would be to more narrowly focus this list, specifically
on **how to make AGI work**.
Potentially, there could be another list, something like agi-
philosophy, devoted to philosophical and weird-physics and other
discussions
not agree with their conclusions. Others may consider Mike Tintner and
Steve Richfield to have useful things to say, when I do not.
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:18:14 -0400From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL
PROTECTED]: Re: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
By the way, I'm avoiding
useful things to say, when
I do not.
--
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:18:14 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
By the way, I'm avoiding responding to this thread till a little time has
it to the high traffic
location unless there's a reason not to.
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:00:45 -0400From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL
PROTECTED]: Re: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
There is already a forum site on agiri.org . Nobody uses it So, just
setting up a forum site
: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:00:45 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
There is already a forum site on agiri.org . Nobody uses it So, just
setting up a forum site is not the answer...
ben g
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 7:44 PM, John G. Rose wrote:
I'd go for 2 lists. Sometimes after working intensely on something concrete
and specific one wants to step back and theorize. And then particular AGI
approaches may be going down the wrong trail and need to step back and look
at things from
How about this:
Those who *do* think it's worthwhile to move to the forum: Instead of posting
email responses to the mailing list, post them to the forum and then post a
link to the response to the email list, thus encouraging threads to continue in
the more advanced venue.
I shall do this
Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 3:37 PM
Terren,
I know a good number of VC's and government and private funding decision
makers... and believe me, **none** of them has remotely enough
Oh, also:
When I try to register a form account, it says:Sorry, an error occurred. If you
are unsure on how to use a feature, or don't know why you got this error
message, try looking through the help files for more information.
The error returned was:
To register, please send your request to
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about this:
Those who *do* think it's worthwhile to move to the forum: Instead of
posting email responses to the mailing list, post them to the forum and then
post a link to the response to the email list, thus
PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 3:37 PM
Terren,
I know a good number of VC's and government and private funding decision
makers... and believe me, **none
why don't you start AGI-tech on the forum? enough people have expressed an
interest - simply reconfirm - and start posting there
- Original Message -
From: Derek Zahn
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 9:09 PM
Subject: RE: [agi] META: A possible re
in the absence of peer-reviewed
journals (something the JAGI hopes to remedy obv).
Terren
--- On Wed, 10/15/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Wednesday
Derek, I am in FULL AGREEMENT. I by far prefer the forum.
Frankly I get tired of scrolling through tons and tons of layered quotes,
and poor formatting. (just a personal preference though). But if we did move
to the forum I would like to see some LaTeX support. I think that would be a
blessing!
Peter, do you think they would be less overwhelmed if they were given the
option of looking at the same content through the use of a forum?
I think it would be far easier to wade through...
- Joseph
---
agi
Archives:
PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 3:37 PM
Terren,
I know a good number of VC's and government and private funding decision
makers... and believe me, **none
From: BillK [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree. I support more type 1 discussions.
I have felt for some time that an awful lot of time-wasting has been
going on here.
I think this list should mostly be for computer tech discussion about
methods of achieving specific results on the
no
From: Joseph Henry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 1:56 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: **JUNK** Re: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
Peter, do you think they would be less overwhelmed if they were given the
option of looking at the same
PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 3:37 PM
Terren,
I know a good number of VC's and government and private funding decision
makers... and believe me
I don't really understand why moving to the forum presents any sort of
technical or logistical issues... just personal ones from some of the
participants here.
It's a psychological issue. I rarely allocate time to participate in
forums, but if I decide to pipe a mailing list to my inbox,
you defend your ideas, especially in the absence of peer-reviewed
journals (something the JAGI hopes to remedy obv).
Terren
--- On *Wed, 10/15/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]* wrote:
From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
To: agi
PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Peter Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 4:51 PM
Not a single one of our current investors (dozen) or
potential investors have used AGI lists to evaluate
best thing to
journal-mediated peer review.
--- On *Wed, 10/15/08, Peter Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED]* wrote:
From: Peter Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 4:51 PM
Not a single one
One day the process of discovery will be automated, and all we'll have
to deal with will be graphs and charts and other abstract
representations of aggregated data, not reams and reams of undigested
text.
Until that point I guess it's wise to do whatever you can. I for one
welcome our
If ruby is an option, maybe this is a solution:
http://rforum.andreas-s.net/. It's a hybrid web forum + mailing list.
Alternatively you can do the same with YahooGroups or GoogleGroups, but they
haven't all the common web forum functionalities.
=
Rafael C.P.
=
Steve,
I don't know why you are taking this opportunity to attack my own particular
approach to AGI, because that is **not** what this thread is about.
I am talking about -- hypothetically, I'm not at all sure it's a good idea,
I'm just raising the issue for discussion!! -- separating two
From: Terren Suydam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is a publicly accessible forum with searchable archives... you
don't necessarily have to be subscribed and inundated to find those
nuggets. I don't know any funding decision makers myself, but if I were
in control of a budget I'd be using
Interesting ... I didn't find any page describing its features though.
(Yes, I know I could sign up for the Ruby forums and play with it... maybe I
will)
How does the mailing list/forum integration work w/ rforum?
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Rafael C.P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
If ruby is
Split seems reasonable to me. Right now this is the closest there is
to a venue specifically for AGI engineering, whereas there are other
places to discuss AGI philosophy. (For example, AGI philosophy would
presumably be on topic for extropy-chat.)
As for the suggestions that we regress to the
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The below suggestion is a perfect illustration of why I have given up on the
list: it shows that the AGI list has become, basically, just a vehicle for
the promotion of Ben's projects and preferences, while everything
Honestly, if the idea is to wave our hands at one another's ideas then
let's at least see something on the table. I'm happy to discuss my
work with natural language parsing and mood evaluation for
low-bandwidth human mimicry, for instance, because it has amounted to
thousands of lines of
and engineers alike, even if
they're not currently used that way. What investors currently or typically do
is beside the point.
--- On Wed, 10/15/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
To: agi@v2
I am also bored of type '2' conversations.
--- On Wed, 10/15/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 8:01 AM
Hi all,
I have been thinking
My two cents. FWIW: Anyone who seriously doubts whether AGI is possible will
never contribute anything of value to those who wish to build an AGI. Anyone
wishing to build an AGI should stop wasting time reading such literature
including postings (let alone replying to them). This is not
64 matches
Mail list logo
