Indeed that is an issue... I appreciate the input from y'all on this topic ... now I'm going to let the responses settle in my brain for a week or so ;-)
The nice thing, of course, is that the list has accumulated a community of people who are passionate and thoughtful about AGI issues. That is good to see! ben g On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > I'll vote for the split, but I'm concerned about exactly where the > line is drawn. > > --Abram > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I have been thinking a bit about the nature of conversations on this > list. > > > > It seems to me there are two types of conversations here: > > > > 1) > > Discussions of how to design or engineer AGI systems, using current > > computers, according to designs that can feasibly be implemented by > > moderately-sized groups of people > > > > 2) > > Discussions about whether the above is even possible -- or whether it is > > impossible because of weird physics, or poorly-defined special > > characteristics of human creativity, or the so-called "complex systems > > problem", or because AGI intrinsically requires billions of people and > > quadrillions of dollars, or whatever > > > > Personally I am pretty bored with all the conversations of type 2. > > > > It's not that I consider them useless discussions in a grand sense ... > > certainly, they are valid topics for intellectual inquiry. > > > > But, to do anything real, you have to make **some** decisions about what > > approach to take, and I've decided long ago to take an approach of trying > to > > engineer an AGI system. > > > > Now, if someone had a solid argument as to why engineering an AGI system > is > > impossible, that would be important. But that never seems to be the > case. > > Rather, what we hear are long discussions of peoples' intuitions and > > opinions in this regard. People are welcome to their own intuitions and > > opinions, but I get really bored scanning through all these intuitions > about > > why AGI is impossible. > > > > One possibility would be to more narrowly focus this list, specifically > on > > **how to make AGI work**. > > > > If this re-focusing were done, then philosophical arguments about the > > impossibility of engineering AGI in the near term would be judged **off > > topic** by definition of the list purpose. > > > > Potentially, there could be another list, something like > "agi-philosophy", > > devoted to philosophical and weird-physics and other discussions about > > whether AGI is possible or not. I am not sure whether I feel like > running > > that other list ... and even if I ran it, I might not bother to read it > very > > often. I'm interested in new, substantial ideas related to the > in-principle > > possibility of AGI, but not interested at all in endless philosophical > > arguments over various peoples' intuitions in this regard. > > > > One fear I have is that people who are actually interested in building > AGI, > > could be scared away from this list because of the large volume of > anti-AGI > > philosophical discussion. Which, I add, almost never has any new > content, > > and mainly just repeats well-known anti-AGI arguments (Penrose-like > physics > > arguments ... "mind is too complex to engineer, it has to be evolved" ... > > "no one has built an AGI yet therefore it will never be done" ... etc.) > > > > What are your thoughts on this? > > > > -- Ben > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> > > >> > Actually, I think COMP=false is a perfectly valid subject for > discussion > >> > on > >> > this list. > >> > > >> > However, I don't think discussions of the form "I have all the > answers, > >> > but > >> > they're top-secret and I'm not telling you, hahaha" are particularly > >> > useful. > >> > > >> > So, speaking as a list participant, it seems to me this thread has > >> > probably > >> > met its natural end, with this reference to proprietary weird-physics > >> > IP. > >> > > >> > However, speaking as list moderator, I don't find this thread so > >> > off-topic > >> > or unpleasant as to formally kill the thread. > >> > > >> > -- Ben > >> > >> If someone doesn't want to get into a conversation with Colin about > >> whatever it is that he is saying, then they should just exercise some > >> self-control and refrain from doing so. > >> > >> I think Colin's ideas are pretty far out there. But that does not mean > >> that he has never said anything that might be useful. > >> > >> My offbeat topic, that I believe that the Lord may have given me some > >> direction about a novel approach to logical satisfiability that I am > >> working on, but I don't want to discuss the details about the > >> algorithms until I have gotten a chance to see if they work or not, > >> was never intended to be a discussion about the theory itself. I > >> wanted to have a discussion about whether or not a good SAT solution > >> would have a significant influence on AGI, and whether or not the > >> unlikely discovery of an unexpected breakthrough on SAT would serve as > >> rational evidence in support of the theory that the Lord helped me > >> with the theory. > >> > >> Although I am skeptical about what I think Colin is claiming, there is > >> an obvious parallel between his case and mine. There are relevant > >> issues which he wants to discuss even though his central claim seems > >> to private, and these relevant issues may be interesting. > >> > >> Colin's unusual reference to some solid path which cannot be yet > >> discussed is annoying partly because it so obviously unfounded. If he > >> had the proof (or a method), then why isn't he writing it up (or > >> working it out). A similar argument was made against me by the way, > >> but the difference was that I never said that I had the proof or > >> method. (I did say that you should get used to a polynomial time > >> solution to SAT but I never said that I had a working algorithm.) > >> > >> My point is that even though people may annoy you with what seems like > >> unsubstantiated claims, that does not disqualify everything they have > >> said. That rule could so easily be applied to anyone who posts on that > >> list. > >> > >> Jim Bromer > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------- > >> agi > >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > >> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > > > > > -- > > Ben Goertzel, PhD > > CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC > > Director of Research, SIAI > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first > > overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson > > > > > > ________________________________ > > agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
