Re[12]: [agi] Funding AGI research
Benjamin, That proves my point [that AGI project can be successfully split into smaller narrow AI subprojects], right? Yes, but it's a largely irrelevant point. Because building a narrow-AI system in an AGI-compatible way is HARDER than building that same narrow-AI component in a non-AGI-compatible way. Even if this is the case (which is not) that would simply mean several development steps: 1) Develop narrow AI with non-reusable AI component and get rewarded for that (because it would be useful system by itself). 2) Refactor non-reusable AI component into reusable AI component and get rewarded for that (because it would reusable component for sale). 3) Apply reusable AI component in AGI and get rewarded for that. If you were analyzing effectiveness of reward systems -- you would notice, that systems (humans, animals, or machines) that are rewarded immediately for positive contribution perform considerably better than systems with reward distributed long after successful accomplishments. So, given the pressures of commerce and academia, people who are motivated to make narrow-AI for its own sake, will almost never create narrow-AI components that are useful for AGI. Sorry, but that does not match with how things really work. So far only researchers/developers who picked narrow-AI approach accomplished something useful for AGI. E.g.: Google, computer languages, network protocols, databases. Pure AGI researchers contributed nothing, but disappointments in AI ideas. Would you agree that splitting very complex and big project into meaningful parts considerably improves chances of success? Yes, sure ... but demanding that these meaningful parts -- be economically viable and/or -- beat competing, somewhat-similar components in competitions dramatically DECREASES chances of success ... INCREASES chances of success. Dramatically. There are lots of examples supporting it both in AI research field and in virtually every area of human research. - 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=8660244id_secret=70646629-5088c0
Re: Re[12]: [agi] Funding AGI research
On Nov 30, 2007 12:03 AM, Dennis Gorelik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Benjamin, That proves my point [that AGI project can be successfully split into smaller narrow AI subprojects], right? Yes, but it's a largely irrelevant point. Because building a narrow-AI system in an AGI-compatible way is HARDER than building that same narrow-AI component in a non-AGI-compatible way. Even if this is the case (which is not) that would simply mean several development steps: 1) Develop narrow AI with non-reusable AI component and get rewarded for that (because it would be useful system by itself). Obviously, most researchers who have developed useful narrow-AI components have not gotten rich from it. The nature of our economy and society is such that most scientific and technical innovators are not dramatically financially rewarded. 2) Refactor non-reusable AI component into reusable AI component and get rewarded for that (because it would reusable component for sale). 3) Apply reusable AI component in AGI and get rewarded for that. - 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=8660244id_secret=70648456-e5f42e
Re: Re[12]: [agi] Funding AGI research
So far only researchers/developers who picked narrow-AI approach accomplished something useful for AGI. E.g.: Google, computer languages, network protocols, databases. These are tools that are useful for AGI RD but so are computer monitors, silicon chips, and desk chairs. Being a useful tool for AGI RD does not make something constitute AGI RD. I do note that I myself have done (and am doing) plenty of narrow AI work in parallel with AGI work. So I'm not arguing against narrow AI nor stating that narrow AI is irrelevant to AGI. But your view of the interrelationship seems extremely oversimplified to me. If it were as simple as you're saying, I imagine we'd have human-level AGI already, as we have loads of decent narrow-AI's for various tasks. -- Ben - 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=8660244id_secret=70647705-610230
