Hi John,
Could you tell us more about WKG - Web Knowledge Gatherer?
- Original Message -
From: John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 2:02 PM
Subject: **SPAM** RE: Time Enough For Work [WAS Re: [agi] What would
motivate you to put work into an AGI project?]
I've found that if I can do 16 to 24 hours on, and then sleep, and then
another 16 to 24 hours on as long as the body can keep up I can reach
really
high thresholds of productivity with ephemeral visions of deep,
comprehensive insight. In the past I've done self-directed data
compression
RD, written video games, telephony switching software in this way on up
to
2 year stints. 8 hours is just warming up. And the concept of the Long
Day Society I've kicked about for years where the day I think is too
short
at 24 hours. Stretching the wake sleep cycle could help us live
longer
But the software I'm working on (WKG - Web Knowledge Gatherer) is pre-AGI
and at some point will need to grow a brain :) so reading all these
discussions and interactions especially among the more astute and learned
individuals on this email list is very informative gives perspective on
some
of the RD that is going on. And any posts and references on good
learning
material and books are helpful. I've just started reading The Symbolic
Species by Terrence W. Deacon which has sat on my shelf for years :) and
is
a little outdated I suppose but has some good information and provides
some
examples examining the human brain but ... brain and computer software
s
different and the brain is such a conglomerated mish-mash of evolutionary
cognitive appendages! It's almost like OK need to start from scratch when
building AGI like when software becomes fragile, rigid, brittle, and rots
(as Agile design tries to avoid). If the brain could be decompiled, which
I'm sure we are getting closer, how much of it would really be useful for
AGI? Would the source code be too messy and spaghetti like? Are there
any
algorithms and data structures that haven't been discovered in
mathematics?
And modeling AGI after brain... maybe loosely. Do we model machines after
human body design, some yes but others not, say an army tank is in some
ways
like a human body but it more accommodates humans (and disaccommodates)
than
is modeled after.
The decompiled brain source code would have some really amazing
undiscovered
stuff in there. Maybe it couldn't be represented with conventional
programming languages. I wonder... parts of it would be immensely
sophisticated yes that's a de facto assumption :). And it could be
decompiled at many levels. I suppose a functional level, macroscopic
decompiler could be made now there are probably many in existence...
John
-Original Message-
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 9:58 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Time Enough For Work [WAS Re: [agi] What would motivate you to
put work into an AGI project?]
Myself, I think that the number of hours working alone might only need
to be a small number (3-4). But what I value most is hours
brainstorming with others who are of like mind and similar level of
knowledge. That is a gold-dust situation.
I have been watching From The Earth To The Moon recently. Oh to be part
of a 100,000-strong community working on one noble project!
Richard Loosemore.
Jean-Paul Van Belle wrote:
Interesting question you raise there, Matt (vs :) YKY
How many of us would be prepared to work FULL-TIME on AGI:
(0) If a department of defense/military organisation paid you develop
a
secret AGI for national defense/intelligence purpose?
(1) If a Microsoft, Google, Sun or IBM came along and hired you
full-time to work on either
(1a) Open-Source; or
(1b) Proprietary AGI?
(2) A more 'friendly' research group came along (e.g. University,
government agency) to pay you fulltime
(2a) on *their* design/architecture or
(2b) on YOUR design but having to share your findings with the
larger
community (shared credit)?
(3) If you had sufficient funds of your own?
Re (3) I have often wondered how much time one could really spend
continuously on working on AGI - refer to the Princeton Instititue of
Advanced Studies where established geniuses (such as Einstein)
were/are
paid to devote fulltime efforts to thinking but actually not many
earthshaking ideas have come out of it. Don't we need a lot of 'time
wasted' on trivia such as a real job, leaking plumbing and family in
order to have these 1 or 2 hours of creative thinking/work each day?
Would it help to have consolidated 8 hour or longer blocks each day?
Do
people like Ben, Leitz and Peter (Voss) really have so much time to
think creatively/design or is my suspicion right that a lot of their
(your :) time is spent on fundraising, PR, communication, management?
The grass always seems greener on the other side...
Jean-Paul
