----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Loosemore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <agi@v2.listbox.com> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 12:43 PM Subject: Re: Environments and Languages for AGI [WAS Re: [agi] My proposal for an AGI agenda]
> > "when someone gets a clue about what they are trying to build, and why". > > > > Are you the only person on this list with a clue? > > As it happens, David, on this occasion I did not particularly have you > in mind when I made the comments. The above comment wasn't addressed to anyone in particular but to the list by default. Recently I was corrected rebuked by Ben for calling Eugen arrogant for summarily putting down others on this list. As it turns out, he didn't mean to be so arrogant and his next email to the list was one of the best he has sent to the list in a long time IMO. I mentioned to Ben in my email, apologizing for my comment, that I wondered why *very intelligent* people seem to feel it necessary to leave their manners at the door when emailing on the internet. > If you have any criticisms you want to voice, by all means do so, but > could you do so in a less inflammatory, and more specific way? I can't > really follow what you were saying in your text, above. Your above comment wasn't inflammatory? There are many areas of AI interest discussed on this list. Ben should be given credit for allowing a *very* large net of acceptable threads, unlike some other lists, I won't mention. I would like a lot more technical and "code fragment like" info shared on this list but what I would like and what I can get are different things. I think rooftop8000, in opening the discussion for some kind of AGI collaboration was just looking for more of that kind of interaction as well. Even though it might have sounded like it in some emails, I don't think anyone was contemplating building an AGI without a plan. If someone was, we all know it wouldn't have worked, guaranteed. If relatively new people to this list are turned off from contributing to this list by blanket putdowns or name calling then everyone loses. Everyone on this list is quite different. I think someone with even a simple AI and some demonstratable code deserves much more credit than people with big theories and nothing in code that works. (At this very moment that also includes me!) Others, I am sure, would disagree but I respect their opinion. I believe in getting the big picture right and then refining the details only through code that works. Too many times, I have created details based on other details that just didn't work when coded and so were worthless. I have never even created any code for any project without a computer to help and verify as I go. I read this list because I think somebody might write something that I could use or at least trigger my thinking of something I might not have otherwise. For this reason I read everything *you* write even though your approach is drastically different than mine. My challenge to the list over my 15 points was for a language for AGI, not just any general purpose language. My intentions at least, were to elicit some constructive comments that might help me in my last few months of it's development. I never meant to cause a language flame war or to bore anyone to death. -- David Clark ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
