Re: Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ??

[Ben Goertzel]

Yes, this is one of the things we are working towards with Novamente.
Unfortunately, meeting this "low barrier" based on a genuine AGI
architecture is a lot more work than doing so in a more bogus way
based on an architecture without growth potential...

ben

On 12/20/06, Joshua Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Ben,

If I am beating a dead horse, please feel free to ignore this, but I'm
imagining a prototype that shows glimmerings of AGI. Such a system, though
not useful or commercially viable, would  sometimes act in interesting, even
creepy, ways. It might be inconsistent and buggy, and work in a limited
domain.

This sets a low barrier, since existing systems occasionally meet this
description. The key difference is that the hypothesized prototype would
have an AGI engine under it and would rapidly improve.

Joshua



> According the approach I have charted out (the only one I understand),
> the true path to AGI does not really involve commercially valuable
> intermediate stages.  This is for reasons similar to the reasons that
> babies are not very economically useful.
>
> .But my best guess is that this is an illusion.  IMO by
> far the best path to a true AGI is by building an artificial baby and
> educating it and incrementally improving it, and by its very nature
> this path does not lead to incremental commercially viable results.
>

 
 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/?list_id=11983


-
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/?list_id=11983

Re: Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ??

[Joshua Fox]

Ben,

If I am beating a dead horse, please feel free to ignore this, but I'm
imagining a prototype that shows glimmerings of AGI. Such a system, though
not useful or commercially viable, would  sometimes act in interesting, even
creepy, ways. It might be inconsistent and buggy, and work in a limited
domain.

This sets a low barrier, since existing systems occasionally meet this
description. The key difference is that the hypothesized prototype would
have an AGI engine under it and would rapidly improve.

Joshua





According the approach I have charted out (the only one I understand),
the true path to AGI does not really involve commercially valuable
intermediate stages.  This is for reasons similar to the reasons that
babies are not very economically useful.

.But my best guess is that this is an illusion.  IMO by
far the best path to a true AGI is by building an artificial baby and
educating it and incrementally improving it, and by its very nature
this path does not lead to incremental commercially viable results.



-
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/?list_id=11983

Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ??

[Ben Goertzel]

Well, the requirements to **design** an AGI on the high level are much
steeper than the requirements to contribute (as part of a team) to the
**implementation** (and working out of design details) of AGI.

I dare say that anyone with a good knowledge of C++, Linux, and
undergraduate computer science -- and who has done a decent amount of
reading in cognitive science -- has the background to contribute to an
AGI project such as Novamente.

Perhaps the Novamente project is now at the stage where it could
benefit from 3-4 "junior" AI software developers.  But even if so, the
problem still exists of finding say $100K to pay these folks for a
year.  Still, this is not so much funding to find, and it's an
interesting possible direction to take.  So far  I have been skeptical
of the ability of more "junior" folks to really contribute, but I
think the project may be at a level of maturity now where this may be
sensible...

Something for me to think about during the holidays...

-- Ben

On 12/15/06, Hank Conn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

"I'm also surprised there aren't more programmers or AGI enthusiasts who
aren't willing to work for beans to further this goal.  We're just two
students in Arizona, but we'd both gladly give up our current lives to work
for 15-20G's a year and pull 80 hour weeks eating this stuff up.  Having a
family is valid excuse, but there are others out there who aren't tied
down.  We may not have PhD's, but we learn quickly."

I know a lot of people in this position (myself included)... although I
think the problem is that creating AGI requires you to have a lot of
background knowledge and experience to be able design and solve problems on
that level (way more than I have probably).

-hank


On 12/12/06, Josh Treadwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What kind of numbers are we talking here to fund a single AGI project like
Novamente?  If I could, I'd instantly dedicate all my time and resources to
developing AI, but because most of my knowledge is auto didactic, I don't
get considered for any jobs.  So for now, I'm stuck in the drudgery of
working 60 hours a week doing IT, while struggling to complete and pay for
college.  As soon as I get out of school I'll have to start paying off
student loans, which won't be feasable in an AGI position (due to lack of
adequate funding).
>
> Thus, a friend of mine and I have decided to take the lower road and start
building lame websites (myspace profile template pages, ggle.com like
pages, other lame ad-words pages) in order to (a) quit our jobs, and (b)
fund our own or others research.  It boggles my mind that no one has become
financially successful and decided to throw a significant sum of money at
Novamente and the like.  For the love of Pete, sacrificing a single
Budweiser Superbowl commercial could fund years of AGI research.  I'm also
surprised there aren't more programmers or AGI enthusiasts who aren't
willing to work for beans to further this goal.  We're just two students in
Arizona, but we'd both gladly give up our current lives to work for 15-20G's
a year and pull 80 hour weeks eating this stuff up.  Having a family is
valid excuse, but there are others out there who aren't tied down.  We may
not have PhD's, but we learn quickly.
>
>
> BTW Ben, for the love of God, can you please tell me when your AGI book is
coming out?  It's been in my Amazon shopping cart for 6 months now!  How
about I just pay you via paypal, and you send me a PDF?
>
>
> Josh Treadwell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
 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/?list_id=11983
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>

 

 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/?list_id=11983


-
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/?list_id=11983

Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ??

[Hank Conn]

"I'm also surprised there aren't more programmers or AGI enthusiasts who
aren't willing to work for beans to further this goal.  We're just two
students in Arizona, but we'd both gladly give up our current lives to work
for 15-20G's a year and pull 80 hour weeks eating this stuff up.  Having a
family is valid excuse, but there are others out there who aren't tied
down.  We may not have PhD's, but we learn quickly."

I know a lot of people in this position (myself included)... although I
think the problem is that creating AGI requires you to have a lot of
background knowledge and experience to be able design and solve problems on
that level (way more than I have probably).

-hank


On 12/12/06, Josh Treadwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


What kind of numbers are we talking here to fund a single AGI project like
Novamente?  If I could, I'd instantly dedicate all my time and resources to
developing AI, but because most of my knowledge is auto didactic, I don't
get considered for any jobs.  So for now, I'm stuck in the drudgery of
working 60 hours a week doing IT, while struggling to complete and pay for
college.  As soon as I get out of school I'll have to start paying off
student loans, which won't be feasable in an AGI position (due to lack of
adequate funding).

Thus, a friend of mine and I have decided to take the lower road and start
building lame websites (myspace profile template pages, ggle.com like
pages, other lame ad-words pages) in order to (a) quit our jobs, and (b)
fund our own or others research.  It boggles my mind that no one has become
financially successful and decided to throw a significant sum of money at
Novamente and the like.  For the love of Pete, sacrificing a single
Budweiser Superbowl commercial could fund years of AGI research.  I'm also
surprised there aren't more programmers or AGI enthusiasts who aren't
willing to work for beans to further this goal.  We're just two students in
Arizona, but we'd both gladly give up our current lives to work for 15-20G's
a year and pull 80 hour weeks eating this stuff up.  Having a family is
valid excuse, but there are others out there who aren't tied down.  We may
not have PhD's, but we learn quickly.


BTW Ben, for the love of God, can you please tell me when your AGI book is
coming out?  It's been in my Amazon shopping cart for 6 months now!  How
about I just pay you via paypal, and you send me a PDF?

*Josh Treadwell**
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
--
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/?list_id=11983

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by *MailScanner* , and is
believed to be clean.



-
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/?list_id=11983

Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ??

[Ben Goertzel]

 BTW Ben, for the love of God, can you please tell me when your AGI book is
coming out?  It's been in my Amazon shopping cart for 6 months now!


The publisher finally mailed me a copy of the book last week!

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/?list_id=11983

Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ??

[Josh Treadwell]

What kind of numbers are we talking here to fund a single AGI project
like Novamente?  If I could, I'd instantly dedicate all my time and
resources to developing AI, but because most of my knowledge is auto
didactic, I don't get considered for any jobs.  So for now, I'm stuck
in the drudgery of working 60 hours a week doing IT, while struggling
to complete and pay for college.  As soon as I get out of school I'll
have to start paying off student loans, which won't be feasable in an
AGI position (due to lack of adequate funding). 

Thus, a friend of mine and I have decided to take the lower road and
start building lame websites (myspace profile template pages,
ggle.com like pages, other lame ad-words pages) in order to (a)
quit our jobs, and (b) fund our own or others research.  It boggles my
mind that no one has become financially successful and decided to throw
a significant sum of money at Novamente and the like.  For the love of
Pete, sacrificing a single Budweiser Superbowl commercial could fund
years of AGI research.  I'm also surprised there aren't more
programmers or AGI enthusiasts who aren't willing to work for beans to
further this goal.  We're just two students in Arizona, but we'd both
gladly give up our current lives to work for 15-20G's a year and pull
80 hour weeks eating this stuff up.  Having a family is valid excuse,
but there are others out there who aren't tied down.  We may not have
PhD's, but we learn quickly.


BTW Ben, for the love of God, can you please tell me when your AGI book
is coming out?  It's been in my Amazon shopping cart for 6 months now! 
How about I just pay you via paypal, and you send me a PDF?  




Josh Treadwell
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]



This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/emailTo unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=11983

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

begin:vcard
fn:Josh Treadwell
n:Treadwell;Josh
org:C.R.I.S. Camera Services;Administration
adr:;;250 North 54th Street;Chandler;AZ;85226;USA
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Systems Administrator
tel;work:480-940-1103
tel;fax:480-940-1329
tel;home:480-460-1999
tel;cell:480-206-3776
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://www.criscam.com
version:2.1
end:vcard

Re: Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ??

[Ben Goertzel]

Hi,


You mention "intermediate steps to AI", but the question is whether these
are narrow-AI applications (the bane of AGI projects) or some sort of
(incomplete) AGI.


According the approach I have charted out (the only one I understand),
the true path to AGI does not really involve commercially valuable
intermediate stages.  This is for reasons similar to the reasons that
babies are not very economically useful.

So, yeah, the only way I see to use commercial AI to fund AGI is to
build narrow-AI projects and sell them, and do a combination of

a) using the profits to fund AGI
b) using common software components btw the narrow-AI and AGI systems,
so the narrow-AI work can help the AGI directly to some extent

Of course, if you believe (as e.g. the Google founders do) that Web
search can be a path to AGI, then you have an easier time of it,
because there is commercial work that appears to be on the direct path
to true AGI.  But my best guess is that this is an illusion.  IMO by
far the best path to a true AGI is by building an artificial baby and
educating it and incrementally improving it, and by its very nature
this path does not lead to incremental commercially viable results.

-- Ben G

-
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/?list_id=11983

Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ??

[Joshua Fox]

Ben,

The question which I would ask, were I a potential funder "How soon can I
see something that, though not true AGI, makes me say 'Wow, I've never seen
anything like that before.' ?"

I appreciate that this is an incredibly challenging project, and that in
some cases investors will accept a ten-year horizon, but as a software
professional I'd say that a working intermediate system, showing real core
functionality, is critical to keeping a project focused and on track.

You mention "intermediate steps to AI", but the question is whether these
are narrow-AI applications (the bane of AGI projects) or some sort of
(incomplete) AGI.

Yours,

Joshua

2006/12/11, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


Hi Joshua,

Thanks for the comments

Indeed, the creation of a thinking machine is not a typical VC type
project.  I know a few VC's personally and am well aware of their way
of thinking and the way thir businesses operate.  There is a lot of
"technology risk" in the creation of an AGI, as compared to the sorts
of projects that VC's are typical interested in funding today.  There
is just no getting around this fact.  From a typical VC perspective,
building a thinking machine is a project with too much risk and too
much schedule uncertainty in spite of the obviously huge payoff upon
success.

Of course, it's always possible a rule-breaking VC could come along
with an interest in AGI.  VC's have funded nanotech projects with a
10+ year timescale to product, for example.

Currently our fundraising focus is on:

a) transhumanist angel investors interested in funding the creation of
true AGI

b) seeking VC money with a view toward funding the rapid construction
and monetization of software products that are
-- based on components of our AGI codebase
-- incremental steps toward AGI.

With regard to b, we are currently working with a business consultant
to formulate a professional "investor toolkit" to present to
interested VC's.

Unfortunately, US government grant funding for out-of-the-mainstream
AGI projects is very hard to come by these days.  OTOH, the Chinese
government has expressed some interest in Novamente, but that funding
source has some serious issues involved with it, needless to say...

-- Ben G


On 12/11/06, Joshua Fox < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ben,
>
> I saw the video.  It's wonderful to see this direct aim at the goal of
the
> positive Singularity.
>
> If I could comment from the perspective of the software industry, though

> without expertise in the problem space, I'd say that there are some
phrases
> in there which would make me, were I a VC, suspicious. (Of course VC's
> aren't the direct audience, but ultimately someone has to provide the
> funding you allude to.)
>
> When a visionary says that he requires more funding and ten years, this
> often indicates an unfocused project that will never get on-track. In
> software projects it is essential to aim for real results, including a
beta
> within a year and multiple added-value-providing versions within
> approximately 3 years. I think that this is not just investor impatience
--
> experience shows that software projects planned for a much longer
schedule
> tend to get off-focus.
>
> I know that you already realize this, and that you do have the focus;
you
> mention your plans, which I assume include meaningful intermediate
> achievements in this incredibly challenging and extraordinary task, but
this
> the impression which comes across in the talk.
>
> Yours,
>
> Joshua
>
>
>
> 2006/12/11, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > For anyone who is curious about the talk "Ten Years to the Singularity
> > (if we Really Really Try)" that I gave at Transvision 2006 last
> > summer, I have finally gotten around to putting the text of the speech

> > online:
> >
> > http://www.goertzel.org/papers/tenyears.htm
> >
> > The video presentation has been online for a while
> >
> > video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1615014803486086198
> >
> > (alas, the talking is a bit slow in that one, but that's because the
> > audience was in Finland and mostly spoke English as a second
> > language.)  But the text may be preferable to those who, like me, hate
> > watching long videos of people blabbering ;-)
> >
> > Questions, comments, arguments and insults (preferably clever ones)
> welcome...
> >
> > -- 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/?list_id=11983
> >
>
>  
>  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/?list_id=11983

-
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/?list_id=11983



-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your o

Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ??

[Russell Wallace]

On 12/11/06, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


The exponential growth pattern [of death toll in wars] holds regardless of
whether you
normalize by global population size or not...



This is one of those memes whose persistence depends entirely on our
psychology and not at all on correspondence to material reality - for some
data points, take a look at the death tolls associated with the fall of the
Roman empire and the Mongol invasions.

-
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/?list_id=11983

Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ??

[Chuck Esterbrook]

Darn.

On 12/11/06, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

The exponential growth pattern holds regardless of whether you
normalize by global population size or not...

-- Ben

On 12/11/06, Chuck Esterbrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regarding de Garis' graph of the number of people who've died in
> different wars throughout history, are the numbers raw or divided by
> the population size?
>
> -Chuck
>
> On 12/11/06, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > For anyone who is curious about the talk "Ten Years to the Singularity
> > (if we Really Really Try)" that I gave at Transvision 2006 last
> > summer, I have finally gotten around to putting the text of the speech
> > online:
> >
> > http://www.goertzel.org/papers/tenyears.htm
> >
> > The video presentation has been online for a while
> >
> > video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1615014803486086198
> >
> > (alas, the talking is a bit slow in that one, but that's because the
> > audience was in Finland and mostly spoke English as a second
> > language.)  But the text may be preferable to those who, like me, hate
> > watching long videos of people blabbering ;-)
> >
> > Questions, comments, arguments and insults (preferably clever ones) 
welcome...
> >
> > -- 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/?list_id=11983
> >
>
> -
> 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/?list_id=11983
>

-
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/?list_id=11983



-
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/?list_id=11983

Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ??

[Ben Goertzel]

The exponential growth pattern holds regardless of whether you
normalize by global population size or not...

-- Ben

On 12/11/06, Chuck Esterbrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Regarding de Garis' graph of the number of people who've died in
different wars throughout history, are the numbers raw or divided by
the population size?

-Chuck

On 12/11/06, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For anyone who is curious about the talk "Ten Years to the Singularity
> (if we Really Really Try)" that I gave at Transvision 2006 last
> summer, I have finally gotten around to putting the text of the speech
> online:
>
> http://www.goertzel.org/papers/tenyears.htm
>
> The video presentation has been online for a while
>
> video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1615014803486086198
>
> (alas, the talking is a bit slow in that one, but that's because the
> audience was in Finland and mostly spoke English as a second
> language.)  But the text may be preferable to those who, like me, hate
> watching long videos of people blabbering ;-)
>
> Questions, comments, arguments and insults (preferably clever ones) welcome...
>
> -- 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/?list_id=11983
>

-
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/?list_id=11983



-
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/?list_id=11983

Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ??

[Chuck Esterbrook]

Regarding de Garis' graph of the number of people who've died in
different wars throughout history, are the numbers raw or divided by
the population size?

-Chuck

On 12/11/06, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi,

For anyone who is curious about the talk "Ten Years to the Singularity
(if we Really Really Try)" that I gave at Transvision 2006 last
summer, I have finally gotten around to putting the text of the speech
online:

http://www.goertzel.org/papers/tenyears.htm

The video presentation has been online for a while

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1615014803486086198

(alas, the talking is a bit slow in that one, but that's because the
audience was in Finland and mostly spoke English as a second
language.)  But the text may be preferable to those who, like me, hate
watching long videos of people blabbering ;-)

Questions, comments, arguments and insults (preferably clever ones) welcome...

-- 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/?list_id=11983



-
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/?list_id=11983

Re: Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ??

[Ben Goertzel]

My main reason for resisting the urge to open-source Novamente is AGI
safety concerns.

At the moment Novamente is no danger to anyone, but once it gets more
advanced, I worry about irresponsible people forking the codebase
privately and creating an AGI customized for malicious purposes...

This is an issue I'm still thinking over, but anyway, that is my  main
reason for not having gone the open-source route up to this point...

-- Ben

On 12/11/06, Bo Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Ben,

My A.I. group of friends (was: CommonSense Computing Group, and is now
more scattered) has been trying to do an open-source development for a set
of programs that are working toward human-scale intelligence.  For
example, Hugo Liu's commonsense reasoning toolkit, ConceptNet, was ported
from Python to many other more efficient versions by the internet
community at large (and used in many other research projects in our lab
and around the world).

Have you thought about releasing your A.G.I. codebase that you mentioned
to the general public so that it can be developed by everyone?  I, for
one, would be interested in downloading it and trying it out.

I realize that research software is often not documented or easily
digestable, but it seems like one of the most efficient ways to attack
the software development problem.

Bo

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Ben Goertzel wrote:

) Hi Joshua,
)
) Thanks for the comments
)
) Indeed, the creation of a thinking machine is not a typical VC type
) project.  I know a few VC's personally and am well aware of their way
) of thinking and the way thir businesses operate.  There is a lot of
) "technology risk" in the creation of an AGI, as compared to the sorts
) of projects that VC's are typical interested in funding today.  There
) is just no getting around this fact.  From a typical VC perspective,
) building a thinking machine is a project with too much risk and too
) much schedule uncertainty in spite of the obviously huge payoff upon
) success.
)
) Of course, it's always possible a rule-breaking VC could come along
) with an interest in AGI.  VC's have funded nanotech projects with a
) 10+ year timescale to product, for example.
)
) Currently our fundraising focus is on:
)
) a) transhumanist angel investors interested in funding the creation of true
) AGI
)
) b) seeking VC money with a view toward funding the rapid construction
) and monetization of software products that are
) -- based on components of our AGI codebase
) -- incremental steps toward AGI.
)
) With regard to b, we are currently working with a business consultant
) to formulate a professional "investor toolkit" to present to
) interested VC's.
)
) Unfortunately, US government grant funding for out-of-the-mainstream
) AGI projects is very hard to come by these days.  OTOH, the Chinese
) government has expressed some interest in Novamente, but that funding
) source has some serious issues involved with it, needless to say...
)
) -- Ben G
)
)
) On 12/11/06, Joshua Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
) >
) > Ben,
) >
) > I saw the video.  It's wonderful to see this direct aim at the goal of the
) > positive Singularity.
) >
) > If I could comment from the perspective of the software industry, though
) > without expertise in the problem space, I'd say that there are some phrases
) > in there which would make me, were I a VC, suspicious. (Of course VC's
) > aren't the direct audience, but ultimately someone has to provide the
) > funding you allude to.)
) >
) > When a visionary says that he requires more funding and ten years, this
) > often indicates an unfocused project that will never get on-track. In
) > software projects it is essential to aim for real results, including a beta
) > within a year and multiple added-value-providing versions within
) > approximately 3 years. I think that this is not just investor impatience --
) > experience shows that software projects planned for a much longer schedule
) > tend to get off-focus.
) >
) > I know that you already realize this, and that you do have the focus; you
) > mention your plans, which I assume include meaningful intermediate
) > achievements in this incredibly challenging and extraordinary task, but this
) > the impression which comes across in the talk.
) >
) > Yours,
) >
) > Joshua
) >
) >
) >
) > 2006/12/11, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
) > >
) > > Hi,
) > >
) > > For anyone who is curious about the talk "Ten Years to the Singularity
) > > (if we Really Really Try)" that I gave at Transvision 2006 last
) > > summer, I have finally gotten around to putting the text of the speech
) > > online:
) > >
) > > http://www.goertzel.org/papers/tenyears.htm
) > >
) > > The video presentation has been online for a while
) > >
) > > video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1615014803486086198
) > >
) > > (alas, the talking is a bit slow in that one, but that's because the
) > > audience was in Finland and mostly spoke English as a second
) > > language.)  But the text may be preferable 

Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ??

[Bo Morgan]

Ben,

My A.I. group of friends (was: CommonSense Computing Group, and is now 
more scattered) has been trying to do an open-source development for a set 
of programs that are working toward human-scale intelligence.  For 
example, Hugo Liu's commonsense reasoning toolkit, ConceptNet, was ported 
from Python to many other more efficient versions by the internet 
community at large (and used in many other research projects in our lab 
and around the world).

Have you thought about releasing your A.G.I. codebase that you mentioned 
to the general public so that it can be developed by everyone?  I, for 
one, would be interested in downloading it and trying it out.

I realize that research software is often not documented or easily 
digestable, but it seems like one of the most efficient ways to attack 
the software development problem.

Bo

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Ben Goertzel wrote:

) Hi Joshua,
) 
) Thanks for the comments
) 
) Indeed, the creation of a thinking machine is not a typical VC type
) project.  I know a few VC's personally and am well aware of their way
) of thinking and the way thir businesses operate.  There is a lot of
) "technology risk" in the creation of an AGI, as compared to the sorts
) of projects that VC's are typical interested in funding today.  There
) is just no getting around this fact.  From a typical VC perspective,
) building a thinking machine is a project with too much risk and too
) much schedule uncertainty in spite of the obviously huge payoff upon
) success.
) 
) Of course, it's always possible a rule-breaking VC could come along
) with an interest in AGI.  VC's have funded nanotech projects with a
) 10+ year timescale to product, for example.
) 
) Currently our fundraising focus is on:
) 
) a) transhumanist angel investors interested in funding the creation of true
) AGI
) 
) b) seeking VC money with a view toward funding the rapid construction
) and monetization of software products that are
) -- based on components of our AGI codebase
) -- incremental steps toward AGI.
) 
) With regard to b, we are currently working with a business consultant
) to formulate a professional "investor toolkit" to present to
) interested VC's.
) 
) Unfortunately, US government grant funding for out-of-the-mainstream
) AGI projects is very hard to come by these days.  OTOH, the Chinese
) government has expressed some interest in Novamente, but that funding
) source has some serious issues involved with it, needless to say...
) 
) -- Ben G
) 
) 
) On 12/11/06, Joshua Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
) > 
) > Ben,
) > 
) > I saw the video.  It's wonderful to see this direct aim at the goal of the
) > positive Singularity.
) > 
) > If I could comment from the perspective of the software industry, though
) > without expertise in the problem space, I'd say that there are some phrases
) > in there which would make me, were I a VC, suspicious. (Of course VC's
) > aren't the direct audience, but ultimately someone has to provide the
) > funding you allude to.)
) > 
) > When a visionary says that he requires more funding and ten years, this
) > often indicates an unfocused project that will never get on-track. In
) > software projects it is essential to aim for real results, including a beta
) > within a year and multiple added-value-providing versions within
) > approximately 3 years. I think that this is not just investor impatience --
) > experience shows that software projects planned for a much longer schedule
) > tend to get off-focus.
) > 
) > I know that you already realize this, and that you do have the focus; you
) > mention your plans, which I assume include meaningful intermediate
) > achievements in this incredibly challenging and extraordinary task, but this
) > the impression which comes across in the talk.
) > 
) > Yours,
) > 
) > Joshua
) > 
) > 
) > 
) > 2006/12/11, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
) > >
) > > Hi,
) > >
) > > For anyone who is curious about the talk "Ten Years to the Singularity
) > > (if we Really Really Try)" that I gave at Transvision 2006 last
) > > summer, I have finally gotten around to putting the text of the speech
) > > online:
) > >
) > > http://www.goertzel.org/papers/tenyears.htm
) > >
) > > The video presentation has been online for a while
) > >
) > > video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1615014803486086198
) > >
) > > (alas, the talking is a bit slow in that one, but that's because the
) > > audience was in Finland and mostly spoke English as a second
) > > language.)  But the text may be preferable to those who, like me, hate
) > > watching long videos of people blabbering ;-)
) > >
) > > Questions, comments, arguments and insults (preferably clever ones)
) > welcome...
) > >
) > > -- 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/?list_id=11983
) > >
) > 
) >  
) >  This list is sponsore

Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ??

[Ben Goertzel]

Hi Joshua,

Thanks for the comments

Indeed, the creation of a thinking machine is not a typical VC type
project.  I know a few VC's personally and am well aware of their way
of thinking and the way thir businesses operate.  There is a lot of
"technology risk" in the creation of an AGI, as compared to the sorts
of projects that VC's are typical interested in funding today.  There
is just no getting around this fact.  From a typical VC perspective,
building a thinking machine is a project with too much risk and too
much schedule uncertainty in spite of the obviously huge payoff upon
success.

Of course, it's always possible a rule-breaking VC could come along
with an interest in AGI.  VC's have funded nanotech projects with a
10+ year timescale to product, for example.

Currently our fundraising focus is on:

a) transhumanist angel investors interested in funding the creation of true AGI

b) seeking VC money with a view toward funding the rapid construction
and monetization of software products that are
-- based on components of our AGI codebase
-- incremental steps toward AGI.

With regard to b, we are currently working with a business consultant
to formulate a professional "investor toolkit" to present to
interested VC's.

Unfortunately, US government grant funding for out-of-the-mainstream
AGI projects is very hard to come by these days.  OTOH, the Chinese
government has expressed some interest in Novamente, but that funding
source has some serious issues involved with it, needless to say...

-- Ben G


On 12/11/06, Joshua Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Ben,

I saw the video.  It's wonderful to see this direct aim at the goal of the
positive Singularity.

If I could comment from the perspective of the software industry, though
without expertise in the problem space, I'd say that there are some phrases
in there which would make me, were I a VC, suspicious. (Of course VC's
aren't the direct audience, but ultimately someone has to provide the
funding you allude to.)

When a visionary says that he requires more funding and ten years, this
often indicates an unfocused project that will never get on-track. In
software projects it is essential to aim for real results, including a beta
within a year and multiple added-value-providing versions within
approximately 3 years. I think that this is not just investor impatience --
experience shows that software projects planned for a much longer schedule
tend to get off-focus.

I know that you already realize this, and that you do have the focus; you
mention your plans, which I assume include meaningful intermediate
achievements in this incredibly challenging and extraordinary task, but this
the impression which comes across in the talk.

Yours,

Joshua



2006/12/11, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Hi,
>
> For anyone who is curious about the talk "Ten Years to the Singularity
> (if we Really Really Try)" that I gave at Transvision 2006 last
> summer, I have finally gotten around to putting the text of the speech
> online:
>
> http://www.goertzel.org/papers/tenyears.htm
>
> The video presentation has been online for a while
>
> video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1615014803486086198
>
> (alas, the talking is a bit slow in that one, but that's because the
> audience was in Finland and mostly spoke English as a second
> language.)  But the text may be preferable to those who, like me, hate
> watching long videos of people blabbering ;-)
>
> Questions, comments, arguments and insults (preferably clever ones)
welcome...
>
> -- 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/?list_id=11983
>

 
 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/?list_id=11983


-
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/?list_id=11983

Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ??

[Joshua Fox]

Ben,

I saw the video.  It's wonderful to see this direct aim at the goal of the
positive Singularity.

If I could comment from the perspective of the software industry, though
without expertise in the problem space, I'd say that there are some phrases
in there which would make me, were I a VC, suspicious. (Of course VC's
aren't the direct audience, but ultimately someone has to provide the
funding you allude to.)

When a visionary says that he requires more funding and ten years, this
often indicates an unfocused project that will never get on-track. In
software projects it is essential to aim for real results, including a beta
within a year and multiple added-value-providing versions within
approximately 3 years. I think that this is not just investor impatience --
experience shows that software projects planned for a much longer schedule
tend to get off-focus.

I know that you already realize this, and that you do have the focus; you
mention your plans, which I assume include meaningful intermediate
achievements in this incredibly challenging and extraordinary task, but this
the impression which comes across in the talk.

Yours,

Joshua



2006/12/11, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


Hi,

For anyone who is curious about the talk "Ten Years to the Singularity
(if we Really Really Try)" that I gave at Transvision 2006 last
summer, I have finally gotten around to putting the text of the speech
online:

http://www.goertzel.org/papers/tenyears.htm

The video presentation has been online for a while

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1615014803486086198

(alas, the talking is a bit slow in that one, but that's because the
audience was in Finland and mostly spoke English as a second
language.)  But the text may be preferable to those who, like me, hate
watching long videos of people blabbering ;-)

Questions, comments, arguments and insults (preferably clever ones)
welcome...

-- 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/?list_id=11983



-
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/?list_id=11983

[singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ??

[Ben Goertzel]

Hi,

For anyone who is curious about the talk "Ten Years to the Singularity
(if we Really Really Try)" that I gave at Transvision 2006 last
summer, I have finally gotten around to putting the text of the speech
online:

http://www.goertzel.org/papers/tenyears.htm

The video presentation has been online for a while

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1615014803486086198

(alas, the talking is a bit slow in that one, but that's because the
audience was in Finland and mostly spoke English as a second
language.)  But the text may be preferable to those who, like me, hate
watching long videos of people blabbering ;-)

Questions, comments, arguments and insults (preferably clever ones) welcome...

-- 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/?list_id=11983