On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Stefan Pernar wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Richard Loosemore
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> wrote:
<DELETED>
Ben: I admire your patience.
Richard: congrats - you just made my ignore list - and that's a
first
Another person who cannot discuss the issues.
Richard - after having spent time looking through your stuff here is my
conclusion:
You postulate that "Achieving AGI requires solving a complex problem"
and that you do not see this being properly incorporated in current AGI
research.
As pointed out by others this position puts you in the "scruffies" camp
of AI research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neats_vs._scruffies)
What follows are wild speculations and grand pie-in-the-sky plans
without substance with a letter to investors attached. Oh, come on!
PS: obviously my ignore list sucks ;-)
Now, if I understand correctly, you got mad at me the other day for
being hypercritical of the AGI-06 conference (and frankly, I would agree
with anyone who said that I should have been less negative) .... but can
you not see that when you make vague, sweeping allegations of the above
sort, you are hardly rising above the kind of behavior that you just
criticised?
All of the points you just made could be met, if you articulated them.
Scruffies? Some people only use that as a derogatory term: what did
you mean by it? I am not necessarily even a 'scruffy' by any accepted
definition of that term, and certainly not by the definition from
Russell and Norvig that I quoted in my paper. As far as I am aware,
*nobody* has accused me of being a scruffy ... it was actually me who
first mentioned the scruffy-neat divide!
"Wild speculations"? Which, exactly? "Grand pie-in-the-sky plans
without substance"? Again, what are you referring to? Don't these all
sound like Stefan's personal opinion?
On all of these points, we could have had meaningful discussion (if you
chose), but if you keep them to yourself and simply decide that I am an
idiot, what chance do I have to meet your objections? I am always open
to criticism, but to be fair it has to be detailed, specific and not
personal.
Also, I am a little confused by the first sentence of the above. It
implies that you only just started looking through my 'stuff' ... have
you read the published papers? The blog posts? The technical
discussions on this list with Mark Waser, Kaj Sotala, Derek Zahn and others?
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
