Mike,
On 9/20/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve: If I were selling a technique like Buzan then I would agree.
However, someone selling a tool to merge ALL techniques is in a different
situation, with a knowledge engine to sell.
The difference AFAICT is that Buzan had an
Mike,
On 9/19/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve: Thanks for wringing my thoughts out. Can you twist a little
tighter?!
A v. loose practical analogy is mindmaps - it was obviously better for
Buzan to develop a sub-discipline/technique 1st, and a program later.
MAJOR
Steve:
If I were selling a technique like Buzan then I would agree. However, someone
selling a tool to merge ALL techniques is in a different situation, with a
knowledge engine to sell.
The difference AFAICT is that Buzan had an *idea* - don't organize your
thoughts about a subject in random
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Trent Waddington
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:30 AM, David Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Take the hypothetical case of R. Marketroid, who's hardware is on the
books
as an asset at ACME Marketing LLC and who's programming has been
Steve:question: Why bother writing a book, when a program is a comparable
effort that is worth MUCH more?
Well,because when you do just state basic principles - as you constructively
started to do - I think you'll find that people can't even agree about those -
any more than they can agree
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for being unclear. The two categories of AI that I refer to are the near
term smart internet automated economy and longer term artificial human or
transhuman phases. In the smart internet phase, individuals with competing
goals
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, John LaMuth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I always advocated a clear seperation between work and PLAY
Here the appeal would be amusement / entertainment - not
any specified work
goal
Have my PR - AI call your PR - AI !!
and Show Me the $$$ !!
As more of the
Mike,
On 9/19/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve:question: Why bother writing a book, when a program is a comparable
effort that is worth MUCH more?
Well,because when you do just state basic principles - as you
constructively started to do - I think you'll find that people
Steve:
Thanks for wringing my thoughts out. Can you twist a little tighter?!
Steve,
A v. loose practical analogy is mindmaps - it was obviously better for Buzan to
develop a sub-discipline/technique 1st, and a program later.
What you don't understand, I think, in all your reasoning about
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Linas Vepstas [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
I agree that the topic is worth careful consideration. Sacrificing the
'free as in freedom' aspect of AGPL-licensed OpenCog for reasons of
AGI safety and/or the prevention of abuse may indeed be necessary one
day.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 8:08 PM, David Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Original works produced by software as a tool where a human operator is
involved at some stage is a different case from original works produced by
software exclusively and entirely under its own direction. The latter has no
2008/9/18 Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
And this is the problem. Although some people have the goal of making
an artificial person with all the richness and nuance of a sentient
creature with thoughts and feelings and yada yada yada.. some of us
are just interested in making more
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And this is the problem. Although some people have
the goal of making
an artificial person with all the richness and nuance
of a sentient
creature with thoughts and feelings and yada yada
yada.. some of us
are just interested
2008/9/18 David Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Linas Vepstas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I agree that the topic is worth careful consideration. Sacrificing the
'free as in freedom' aspect of AGPL-licensed OpenCog for reasons of
AGI safety and/or the prevention of
Lets distinguish between the two major goals of AGI. The first is to
automate the economy. The second is to become immortal through uploading.
Peculiarly, you are leaving out what to me is by far the most important and
interesting goal:
The creation of beings far more intelligent than humans
Ben,
IMHO...
On 9/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lets distinguish between the two major goals of AGI. The first is to
automate the economy. The second is to become immortal through uploading.
Peculiarly, you are leaving out what to me is by far the most important and
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lets distinguish between the two major goals of AGI. The first is to
automate the economy. The second is to become immortal through uploading.
Peculiarly, you are leaving out what to me is by far the most important and
interesting goal:
Steve:View #2 (mine, stated from your approximate viewpoint) is that simple
programs (like Dr. Eliza) have in the past and will in the future do things
that people aren't good at. This includes tasks that encroach on
intelligence, e.g. modeling complex phonema and refining designs.
Steve,
In
When an AGI writes a book, designs a new manufacturing base, forms a
decentralised form of regulation, ect, the copyright and patent system will
be futile, because the enclosed material, when deemed useful by another,
will access the same information and rewrite it in another form to create a
I would go further. Humans have demonstrated that they cannot be
trusted in the long term even with the capabilities that we already
possess. We are too likely to have ego-centric rulers who make
decisions not only for their own short-term benefit, but with an
explicit After me the deluge
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:31 AM, Trent Waddington
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:36 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lets distinguish between the two major goals of AGI. The first is to automate
the economy. The second is to become immortal through uploading.
Umm,
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:53 AM, Linas Vepstas [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Exactly. If opencog were ever to reach the point of
popularity where one might consider a change of
licensing, it would also be the case that most of the
interested parties would *not* be under SIAI control,
and thus
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Trent Waddington
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Claiming a copyright and successfully defending that claim are different
things.
What ways do you envision someone challenging the copyright?
Take the hypothetical case of R. Marketroid, who's hardware is on the
On Thursday 18 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
In principle, I'm all for the idea that I think you (and perhaps
Bryan) have expressed of a GI Assistant - some program that could
be of general assistance to humans dealing with similar
problems across many domains. A diagnostics expert,
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And to boot, both of you don't really know what you want.
What we want has been programmed into our brains by the process of evolution. I
am not pretending the outcome will be good. Once we have the technology to have
everything we
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:30 AM, David Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Take the hypothetical case of R. Marketroid, who's hardware is on the books
as an asset at ACME Marketing LLC and who's programming has been tailered by
ACME to suit their needs. Unbeknownst to ACME, RM has decided to write
Matt M wrote:
Peculiarly, you are leaving out what to me is by far the most important
and interesting goal:
The creation of beings far more intelligent than humans yet benevolent
toward humans
That's what I mean by an automated economy. Google is already more
intelligent than any human
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:36 AM, Matt Mahoney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lets distinguish between the two major goals of AGI.
The first is to automate the economy. The second is to
become immortal through uploading.
Umm, who's
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
general intelligence at the human level
I hear you say these words a lot. I think, by using the word level,
you're trying to say something different to general intelligence just
like humans have but I'm not sure everyone
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps there are some applications I haven't thought of?
Bahahaha.. Gee, ya think?
Trent
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe there is a qualitative difference btw AGI and narrow-AI, so that
no tractably small collection of computationally-feasible narrow-AI's (like
Google
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Matt Mahoney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps there are some applications I haven't
thought of?
Bahahaha.. Gee, ya think?
So perhaps you could name some applications of AGI that don't fall
PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re:
Proprietary_Open_Source)
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Matt Mahoney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So perhaps you could name some applications of AGI that don't fall into the
categories of (1) doing work or (2) augmenting your brain?
Perhaps you could list some uses of a computer that don't fall into
the category of (1)
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, yes, and that difference is a distributed index, which has yet to be
built.
I extremely strongly disagree with the prior sentence ... I do not think that
a distributed index is a sufficient architecture for powerful AGI at the
of (1) doing work.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog]
Re:
Proprietary_Open_Source
So perhaps you could name some applications of AGI that don't fall into the
categories of (1) doing work or (2) augmenting your brain?
3) learning as much as possible
4) proving as many theorems as possible
5) figuring out how to improve human life as much as possible
Of course, if you
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Matt Mahoney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So perhaps you could name some applications of AGI
that don't fall into the categories of (1) doing work or
(2) augmenting your brain?
Perhaps you could
- Original Message -
From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: Two goals of AGI (was Re: [agi] Re: [OpenCog] Re:
Proprietary_Open_Source)
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, John LaMuth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have
Mike,
On 9/18/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve:View #2 (mine, stated from your approximate viewpoint) is that
simple programs (like Dr. Eliza) have in the past and will in the future do
things that people aren't good at. This includes tasks that encroach on
intelligence, e.g.
Lets take the opencog list off this email, and move the
conversation to the agi list .
2008/9/17 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
James,
I agree that the topic is worth careful consideration. Sacrificing the
'free as in freedom' aspect of AGPL-licensed OpenCog for reasons of
AGI safety and/or the
41 matches
Mail list logo
