On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Matt Mahoney <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:30 AM, just camel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Why do you always argue via evolution and DNA? DNA requires a vast > amount of > > overhead and comes with tons of evolutionary baggage that is irrelevant > to > > our intelligence but was/is required in order to make the system > > evolve/work. > > Large software projects also have a lot of useless and redundant code, > test code, code for features that nobody uses, code that doesn't work, > etc. > All AGIers are liars, and Matt's mattrithmetic is dodgy , especially when applied to biological systems which are still a puzzle wrapped in an enigma inside a mystery. However, Matt is very much spot on (and off-topic) in his comments about software systems, and every sane AGIer, ideally all two of them, should avoid software complexity even more passionately than the average software manager. Or else the staffing requirements will start looking like CYCcorp times 50, while the result will resemble CYC times 0.5 Now, whether this is all fundable in some funky way, how far can you get with 300K etc, I don't know but I am guessing not very far. I regret not making a few mil from photo sharing, browsers, kitty porn, whatever, and mostly rely on the bootstrapping model while keeping an eye open for Cherubim investing, ie "here's 20 mil, now go out and make maximum AGI impact with it, I trust you" - dream on, dreamer! AT ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
