I'm looking for some partners to develop the AGI described on my web page, and I'm
also interested in more long-term and large-scale collaboration with other AGI groups.
I think currently AGI is going through a fermenting stage before a dominant design
will emerge. This will require a lot of wo
YKY>we 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 v
of a member AGI project (Novamente).
-- Ben 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
>
>
>
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 puttin
> 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 e
[ Thanks for the replies, my email is temporarily shut down so
I'm reading this from the AGI archive. Private emails sent to
me may be lost. ]
An AGI consortium may assume a spectrum of functions, with
various degrees of involvement:
1. "Cultural" aspects (promotion of AGI)
-- Security issues
> An AGI consortium may assume a spectrum of functions, with
> various degrees of involvement:
>
> 1. "Cultural" aspects (promotion of AGI)
>-- Security issues
>-- Long-term, social issues
> 2. Open Source promotion
> 3. Informal knowledge sharing
> 4. Development of standards / interfac
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 should
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 t
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 sys
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 cha
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 ma
> 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 acquire
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Yan King Yin wrote:
I think currently AGI is going through a fermenting stage before a
dominant design will emerge. This will require a lot of work, and it is
I can understand how AI researchers always believe in the eventual
success of their projects, but it is also quite
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 l
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 technol
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 pro
> 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 t
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 quantiti
On Jun 28, 2004, at 7:08 PM, Brad Wyble wrote:
The more one studies the specifics of the solutions the brain uses,
the more one realizes the incredible varieties of strategies that
could have been used, yes economically, and yes in our universe.
But what is so extraordinary about this? This is
On Jun 28, 2004, at 7:08 PM, Brad Wyble wrote:
The more one studies the specifics of the solutions the brain uses, the
more one realizes the incredible varieties of strategies that could have
been used, yes economically, and yes in our universe.
But what is so extraordinary about this? This is
> 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,
> 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 a
> 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
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 ste
25 matches
Mail list logo
