On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Brad Wyble wrote:
[...]
This is usually the case in new technological domains.
The first innovators get wiped out by the next generation
that learns from their success.
Nothing wrong with this (apart from being unfair), just
capitalism at work. Someone will steal
I don't think one needs to become as big as Microsoft or IBM to fund AGI
research very amply, however. I think AGI is best done by a small,
tightly focused team, with ongoing feedback from a larger group of
loosely affiliated scientists. If I had enough research funding to pay
for, say
Hi,
All I asked was a possible collaboration, I feel very
disappointed that my offer is prematurely rejected. I think
excluding me from collaboration is a very unfriendly gesture.
I have not offended anyone here before.
Indeed, I am interested in collaborating with you and others on an
I think we have a significant disagreement about the relationship
between AGI research and business. I don't see why you think having
marketable products is essential to AGI research. AGI is about building
a digital mind, and doesn't *have* to be any more about business than
raising a
Hi,
One thing that I personally want to see is for each group to
define its goal in more details so we can understand how the
AGI products are differentiated. Right now the situation,
as I see it, is that we're still struggling to create the
first marketable product. I think the
Brad Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not? These statements seem to fly in the face of historical
precedent
for most technologies There are an infinite range of solutions to this
problem, and there is no incentive for the entire world to choose one
solution (unlike certain
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
There is most certainly not an infinite range of solutions, and there is
an extremely narrow range of economically viable solutions.
There are certainly an infinite range of solutions in AI,
even for a specific problem, let alone for a space of many
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how this range is
extremely narrow.
I should have specified extremely narrow for implementations in our
universe as we generally understand it.
This is an old discussion, so I'm not going to
Great stuff Andrew.
I should have specified extremely narrow for implementations in our
universe as we generally understand it.
This is an old discussion, so I'm not going to rehash it. The enemy of
implementation is *tractability*, not will this work in theory if I
throw astronomical quantities
Hi,
I don't know if i am eligible to suggest alternative names for AI or
not but here are some suggestions for names (just pure brainstorming
for fun.)
heuristic intelligence, thinking machines, inorganic intelligence,
algorithmic intelligence, intelligent systems, thinking systems,
reasoning
YKY --
After thinking about this a little more, I've concluded that
this proposed AGI Consortium should probably be something
separate from AGIRI, which should continue to exist as a
vehicle for nonprofit applications of Novamente.
OK, I thought about this a little *more* and I changed
Hi,
Personally my inclination is to stick with the name AI or some
permutation thereof due to its general recognizability.
Even though when you decompose it into the two words artificial and
intelligence some of the connotations aren't quite right;
nevertheless, the word has acquired so many
Personally my inclination is to stick with the name AI or some
permutation thereof due to its general recognizability.
Even though when you decompose it into the two words artificial and
intelligence some of the connotations aren't quite right;
nevertheless, the word has acquired so many
Hi all
I have talked to Ben briefly, about turning the AGIRI website
into a consortium. He and I agreed it would be a nonprofit
for now. Though personally I have aspirations of more
elaborate, for-profit objectives for it. But that'll depend on
further development.
I suggest the consortium
Hi,
YKY wrote:
I have talked to Ben briefly, about turning the AGIRI website
into a consortium. He and I agreed it would be a nonprofit
for now. Though personally I have aspirations of more
elaborate, for-profit objectives for it. But that'll depend
on further development.
After
An AGI research consortium would really only work at the edges of AGI
research rather than directly coordinating AGI projects. By this I
mean doing things like possibly defining certain kinds of data and
interchange standards, developing standard test suites and data sets,
possibly even
YKYwe can form a research consortium to better capture market value and
so everyone will get a slice of the pie. This will also facilitate
communication and external knowledge sharing between AGI groups (such as
sharing a virtual sensory environment testbed). ..
It could make sense to share
G
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Yan King Yin
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 7:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [agi] AGI research consortium
I'm looking for some partners to develop the AGI described on
my web page
An AGI research consortium would really only work at the edges of AGI
research rather than directly coordinating AGI projects. By this I
mean doing things like possibly defining certain kinds of data and
interchange standards, developing standard test suites and data sets,
possibly even
19 matches
Mail list logo
