Fundamentally, it *IS* just a standard for-profit company with the intention
of using as high a percentage of intermediate earnings as possible until an AGI is created. The main difference is the final profits are split by the AGI (and that I specified a lot of what would be in the corporate by-laws). The main advantage is that we don't have to determine who gets what in the meantime.
So, the share allocation is left undetermined, to be determined by the AGI someday? But who determines when the AGI is mature enough to make that determination??? ;-)
Does the above make my suggestion any less unpalatable?
I suppose the suggestion makes sense, but it doesn't provide any way for folks to profit from intermediate results, only from achieving the end goal of human-level AGI... right? What would you do differently? Obviously, for Novamente, you've made the
differing choices of requiring NDAs to allow the ability to see all the code and clearer promises of present and future compensation (is it a dictatorship, though? :-). What would *YOU* do if you didn't have money and wanted to form a volunteer organization?
I suppose I would either make it nonprofit, or make it a traditional for-profit with traditional compensation schemes (like Novamente)... But I'm all for innovation and I'll be curious to see how your scheme works out... I feel there's enough complexity and weirdness in the AGI, I don't feel like adding complexity and weirdness in the organizational structure... -- Ben ----- 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/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
