On Apr 6, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
That's surely part of it ... but investors have put big $$ into much
LESS
mature projects in areas such as nanotech and quantum computing.
This is because nanotech and quantum computing can be readily and
easily packaged as straightforward physical machinery technology,
which a lot of people can readily conceptualize even if they do not
actually understand it. AGI is not a physical touchable technology in
the same sense (or even software sense), which is further aggravated
by the many irrational memes of woo-ness that surround the idea of
consciousness, intelligence, spirituality that the vast majority of
investors uncritically subscribe to. Indeed, many view the poor track
record of AI as validation of their nutty beliefs. There have been
some technically ridiculous AI projects that got substantial funding
because they appealed to the biases of the investors.
If AGI was merely a function of hardware design, I suspect it would be
much easier to sell because many investors would much more easily
delude themselves into thinking they understand it, or at least
conceptualize it in a way that comports with reality. Over the years
I have slowly come to believe that the long track record of failure in
AI is a minor contributor to the relative dearth of funding for bold
AI ventures -- the problem has never been a lack of people willing to
take a risk per se.
J. Andrew Rogers
-------------------------------------------
singularity
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
