Derek Zahn wrote:
Richard Loosemore writes:
> Okay, let me try this.
>
> Imagine that we got a bunch of computers [...]
Thanks for taking the time to write that out. I think it's the most
understandable version of your argument that you have written yet. Put
it on the web somewhere and link to it whenever the issue comes up again
in the future.
Thanks: I will do that very soon.
If you are right, you may have to resort to "told you so" when other
projects fail to produce the desired emergent intelligence. No matter
what you do, system builders can and do and will say that either their
system is probably not heavily impacted by the issue, or that the issue
itself is overstated for AGI development, and I doubt that most will be
convinced otherwise. By making such a clear exposition, at least the
issue is out there for people to think about.
True. I have to go further than that if I want to get more people
involved in working on this project though. People with money listen to
the mainstream voice and want nothing to do with an idea so heavily
criticised, no matter that the criticism comes from those with a vested
interest in squashing it.
I have no position myself on whether Novamente (for example) is likely
to be slain by its own complexity, but it is interesting to ponder.
I would rather it did not, and I hope Ben is right in being so
optimistic. I just know that it is a dangerous course to follow if you
actually don't want to run the risk of another 50 years of running
around in circles.
Richard Loosemore.
-----
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=8660244&id_secret=73348560-68439c
