On 6/11/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm sorry about the confusion. Let me correct by saying: it *is* to
your advantage to exaggerate your contributions, but your peers won't allow it.
Cool. I'll then move back to my other point that is probably better phrased as
"I don't believe you (or any current human) can set up a system which is both systematic and reasonably fair under the constraints you've chosen."
I also note that you've made several references to a managerial board.
How do you intend to select this board? How do you intend to keep them honest? How is this truly different from my "trustworthy owners" (except from, of course, the manner in which they are selected -- or maybe not even then since maybe I'll just have a nomination and election process before I set up)? Programming is not the only skill needed for an AGI project, we need algorithm / architecture design, writing documentation, etc. All of these things can be termed "mental work" and their quality can *only* be judged by intelligent beings, which, pre-AGI, are human beings. In other words, the only choices we have for running a business are either to rely on "peers" or traditional management. If you think my scheme "cannot be fair" then the alternative of traditional management can only be worse (in terms of fairness, which in turn affects the quality of work being done). The situation is quite analogous to that between a state-command economy and a free market (or actually identical?) YKY ----- 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
