There is a wide area between moderation and complete laissez-faire.
Also, as list owner, people tend to pay attention to what you say/request and
also what you do.
If you regularly point to references and ask others to do the same, they are
likely to follow. If you were to gently chastise people for saying that there
are no facts when references were provided, people might get the hint.
Instead, you generally feed the trolls and "humorously" insult the people who
are trying to keep it on a scientific basis. That's a pretty clear message all
by itself.
You don't need to spend more time but, as a serious role model for many of the
people on the list, you do need to pay attention to the effects of what you say
and do. I can't help but go back to my perceived summary of the most recent
issue -- "Ben Goertzel says that there is no true defined method to the
scientific method (and Mark Waser is clueless for thinking that there is)."
----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 6:53 AM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
It would also be nice if this mailing list could be operate on a bit more
of a scientific basis. I get really tired of pointing to specific references
and then being told that I have no facts or that it was solely my opinion.
This really has to do with the culture of the community on the list, rather
than the "operation" of the list per se, I'd say.
I have also often been frustrated by the lack of inclination of some list
members to read the relevant literature. Admittedly, there is a lot of it to
read. But on the other hand, it's not reasonable to expect folks who *have*
read a certain subset of the literature, to summarize that subset in emails for
individuals who haven't taken the time. Creating such summaries carefully
takes a lot of effort.
I agree that if more careful attention were paid to the known science related
to AGI ... and to the long history of prior discussions on the issues discussed
here ... this list would be a lot more useful.
But, this is not a structured discussion setting -- it's an Internet
discussion group, and even if I had the inclination to moderate more carefully
so as to try to encourage a more carefully scientific mode of discussion, I
wouldn't have the time...
ben g
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
