Benjamin "Well I just graduated from college a few days ago, so if you need youthful members than I'm probably young enough for that"
We strongly encourage youthful members to make footsteps on this new landscape of H-AGI. This path was always there but never followed -see Colin "https://intelligence.org They are mostly software/math/logic people and produce in the clouds philosophical papers http://www.agi-3.com They just glue together anything and everything that works. I think partnering with the above organizations in some fashion could be beneficial to the IGI." The idea would be to bring together under IGI every AGI attempt a. theoretical/philosophical b. practical, business oriented Dorian On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Benjamin Kapp <[email protected]> wrote: > Well I just graduated from college a few days ago, so if you need youthful > members than I'm probably young enough for that :). And I'm dedicating my > life to doing AGI so that doesn't hurt. However, I think that it make > sense to have both young and old members. Having a mixture would provide > the benefit of different perspectives, and the ideas of the previous > generation would be able to live on in the younger generations. Also a > great deal of industrial organizational psychology says that having a > mixture of different kinds of people facilitates productivity because what > is a difficulty from ONE kind of person is unlikely to be so for ALL kinds > of people. > > There do exist similar organizations already however. > > https://intelligence.org They are mostly software/math/logic people and > produce in the clouds philosophical papers > http://www.agi-3.com They just glue together anything and everything > that works. > > I think partnering with the above organizations in some fashion could be > beneficial to the IGI. What are your thoughts? > > On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dorian et. al. >> Good to be getting into this. I have a sense of responsibility to those >> that may seek to be involved. We have to get this right .. or as least as >> close as we can. >> >> This framework: >> >> 1) Computer-based AGI (C-AGI) - digital computers are excellent >> tools, however compared to the real brain they provide only a “reduced >> model of computation” . >> >> 2) Hybrid-based AGI (H-AGI) to integrate wet lab research, >> current AGI efforts, build a "full model of computation" that can be >> reshaped and provide more tips how to build a more synthetic AGI . This >> intermediary step can bring funding from all brain initiatives and >> have huge impact on health/medicine and therapy. >> >> 3) Non-computer-based AGI (NC-AGI) , the final step >> >> This is excellent. I was always headed to 2). I just wish I had expressed >> it this way earlier! Thanks Dorian. >> >> The brain is a natural version of (3). Clearly we are looking at a new >> approach that, via something like an IGI, explores the possibility that >> H-AGI is a step towards (3) and why. Such an approach merely recognizes >> that we do not know which of the three (or combos of them) lead to what AGI >> potential. This initiative represents an inclusive expansion in approaches >> to AGI. >> >> *Board* >> I lean towards a business model that includes a managed receptiveness to >> the views of the academic infrastructure. >> >> NOTE: I actually have a long history in business. Process control/machine >> automation. I have started and run companies and filled them full of folk. >> But I discovered its not my natural habitat. But I can do it at gunpoint. I >> even got lawyers to put together a constitution for a research institute >> once. I realised it would never get off the ground because of me not being >> a scientist. All I had was an idea. The same idea that I bring here today. >> So I became a scientist. Now I think I can do this. But I would rather >> someone else did the nuts and bolts. I definitely shouldn't be >> administering it. But I know how to set up and be enthusiastic about stuff >> that someone else can run. I have the capacity to ensure the institute >> deals with IP issues (or to decide not to). But if I was running such a >> thing I would not hire me to inhabit the role because it's not really 'me'. >> What I prefer to do is science magic in the back room, out of sight. That >> is my natural habitat. I have discovered that. But if I have to put that >> old hat back on .... I will. >> >> I also realise that this is not about me. This is about a new approach. I >> may have to be happy just to foster it and set it free and accept that is >> my part in it. Being nearly 60 I am realistic about my role in it. Build >> the fire. Strike it. Let the youngsters loose. Make it fun. >> >> So I see the practical aspects of establishment of an IGI to be a little >> less of a problem than Dorian might think. >> >> The meat of this? We have what Craig Venter has in terms of >> a novel solution to an old problem. That idea also has at least >> the potential impact of the human genome. What we don't have is Craig >> Venter's money. I wish. I can tell you now that if I did I'd already be >> doing all of this. There would already be an IGI and it would already have >> robots doing things. Like Venter we do not need anyone's permission to do >> this. This has been extremely frustrating for me. >> >> Yet .. I have a very honed appreciation of the academic approach. I >> choose the business way forward because the process is 'solve a single >> pesky problem' oriented. I am here to solve a problem. If I can't do that >> then I will not be doing science at all. There is a history of 'one trick >> scientists'. That's me. Discoverer of the neutrino, inventor of the blue >> LED etc etc. Pigheaded stubbornness in pursuit of a single goal. >> Additionally, if, like the original inventor of fire, a problem was solved >> without knowing formally how (that comes after) then that is fine. In the >> history of science the 'theory follows practice' model is my approach. AGI >> is strangely under-represented in this approach. This problem could be >> solved without any publishing whatever and without any theory.. Just by >> enthusiasm and resources. But I would rather it find some sort of >> equilibrium between the two extremes of academia/business. Yet another >> hybrid, but with a business-structured approach. Like what Venter did. >> Maybe the HTM progenitor.... Jeff Hawkins ... might see the IGI as >> interesting? There are a bevy of the potentially interested to seek. >> >> Investors will look more favourably on the IGI as an IP factory rather >> than a scientific paper factory. The reverse is the case for the academic >> establishment. So we have to throw the dart and then maybe draw the >> bullseye where it hits and sticks. That balance is a mystery to me. >> >> Example: I have been inside a $50,000,000 bionic eye project based on >> academic-centric activity. Despite all that activity, the actual result is >> lots of science knowledge, lots of new infrastructure, skill base .... and >> an actual commercial outcome that is a too-late, too little camel designed >> by an academic mandate to design and build a horse. I say that with >> respect, knowing personally the head professor and involved with a paper >> with him as we speak. (Thinks ... must get back to that). It doesn't work >> well as a route to timely, appropriate tech or commerce outcomes. They >> think they had success because of "number of patents" KPI. I want success >> "solved the problem". Imagine what we could have done with $50,000,000. >> Makes me grumpy. >> >> Unlike the bionic eye, H-AGI already has the tech infrastructure to >> succeed. It's over-prepared through inattention as an option. The only >> thing missing is a cultural recognition of a path that was always there but >> never followed. It's not like we are even being radical in the deep sense >> of science practice! It's a reversion to history. It's likely to have an >> accelerated uptake in the IP department. >> >> We can kick business oriented structure ideas about a bit here if you >> like. And potential people? Have a go! >> >> We are learning what it is like to encounter this possibility as a group, >> together. We have a certain responsibility to do the best we can. First >> footsteps on a new landscape and all. That sort of thing. I have reverted >> to my opening remark... so I guess I am done! >> >> regards >> >> Colin Hales >> >> >> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Dorian Aur <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Steve “Without these, Colin approach seems to be doomed.” >>> >>> >>> >>> A good point that's why we need to explicitly introduce the >>> intermediate step (2) and we can have everything under one roof (integrate >>> not divide) >>> >>> >>> >>> 1) Computer-based AGI (C-AGI) - digital computers are excellent >>> tools, however compared to the real brain they provide only a “reduced >>> model of computation” >>> >>> 2) Hybrid -based AGI (H-AGI) to integrate wet lab research, >>> current AGI efforts, build a "full model of computation" that can be >>> reshaped and provide more tips how to build a more synthetic AGI . This >>> intermediary step can bring funding from all brain initiatives and >>> have huge impact on health/medicine and therapy. >>> >>> 3) Non-computer-based AGI (NC-AGI) , the final step >>> >>> >>> >>> *Why a board of directors?* >>> >>> >>> >>> One may pursue two different models: >>> >>> *(A)Academic model: * Defending the value of information written in >>> the textbooks is a responsibility of any academic scholar, so >>> changing/ challenging anything becomes extremely difficult – see the >>> initial acceptance of Deep Learning models ten years ago >>> >>> *(B)Business model: * works in many cases better than the academic >>> model in shaping new things, see Tesla, Edison,Ford, Marconi and more >>> recently Craig Venter. Fast gains are required to maintain the business >>> model running. >>> >>> >>> >>> The board of directors should mainly take care of AGI business, >>> marketing strategy for any attempt made in (1)(2) and (3). Step 2 can help >>> the AGI business . >>> >>> Selecting the future board members is probably the most important task >>> for IGI, Ben and many others can provide more details about how difficult >>> is to maintain AGI business today. Chip implants, Mercury colonization.... >>> and similar topics can all be thoroughly discussed after IGI is up and >>> running >>> >>> >>> We need to shape IGI based on a business model, so please feel, free to >>> make any reliable proposals to build the infrastructure >>> >>> >>> Dorian >>> >>> >>> PS Neither Colin nor I are businessman and we do not make any attempt >>> to be members of the board >>> >>> >>> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Logan Streondj <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 09:48:03AM +1000, colin hales wrote: >>>> > Sorry about the previous empty. Phone issue. 10 thumbs. >>>> > >>>> > My particular flavour of the non-computer approach is irrelevant. I >>>> am not pushing my own at all. >>>> > >>>> > Robot $ and kind irrelevant. I have the math you speak of. Wrong on >>>> both counts. >>>> > >>>> > I do not care what kind of NC-AGI arises. All I know is that NC-AGI >>>> important, neglected and needs a champion. >>>> >>>> okay so obviously you are the champion. >>>> Why is it important? >>>> >>>> you guys have been talking about it for a week now, >>>> and I still have no idea why you think it has value. >>>> >>>> like lets be honest here, anything that isn't a computer or >>>> technology is biology. so what you are really talking about >>>> (seems to me) is biological-AGI, or connecting a vat of >>>> brain-cells to a computer. >>>> this has been done, and can play simple video games. >>>> but so can deep neuronets on computers. >>>> >>>> >>>> > So please set anything you think you know about me or my approach >>>> aside. You actually know almost nothing and what little that is is >>>> irrelevant to what is happening in this thread. >>>> >>>> okay so do you have some kind of proprietary secret approach? >>>> >>>> I was thinking you can Dorian can sign an NDA and then no one >>>> will ever know about anything you guys do. >>>> >>>> personally I think that there are a lot of potential ethical >>>> issues with using biological mediums for computation, also they >>>> aren't particularly scalable or portable. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------- >>>> AGI >>>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >>>> RSS Feed: >>>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/17795807-366cfa2a >>>> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >>>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >>>> >>> >>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11721311-20a65d4a> | >>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/26973278-698fd9ee> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/17795807-366cfa2a> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- 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
