On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PREMISES:
>
> (1) AGI is one of the most complicated problem in the history of
> science, and therefore requires substantial funding for it to happen.
Potentially, though, massively distributed, collaborative open-source
sof
Ben Goertzel wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
PREMISES:
(1) AGI is one of the most complicated problem in the history of
science, and therefore requires substantial funding for it to happen.
Potentially, though, massively distributed, collaborativ
> > Potentially, though, massively distributed, collaborative open-source
> > software development could render your first premise false ...
> >
>
> Though it is unlikely to do so, because collaborative open-source
> projects are best suited to situations in which the fundamental ideas behind
Richard,
You are right, though the "overhead" is not mainly money, but time.
Of course I don't really believe in my "proof", otherwise I'd say that
AGI is impossible. ;-)
Among the "premises" I listed, only (1) is not my personal belief,
though I know it is assumed by many people.
I believe AGI
Pei: I believe AGI is basically a theoretical problem, which will be solved
by a single person or a small group, with little funding
How do you define that problem?
---
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listb
See http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.AI_Definitions.pdf
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pei: I believe AGI is basically a theoretical problem, which will be solved
> by a single person or a small group, with little funding
>
> How do you define tha
On 4/19/08, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > PREMISES:
> > >
> > > (1) AGI is one of the most complicated problem in the history of
> > > science, and therefore requires substantial funding for it to happen.
> >
> >
> > Potentially, though, massively distributed, collaborative o
On 4/19/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Though it is unlikely to do so, because collaborative open-source
> > projects are best suited to situations in which the fundamental ideas behind
> > the design has been solved.
>
> I believe I've solved the fundamental issues behind th
Another problem is how to judge the impressiveness of a demo,
especially if you're a non expert. It's relatively easy to come up
with superficially impressive demos, which then turn out upon closer
investigation to be fraught with problems or just not scalable. This
seems to happen all the time w
On 4/19/08, YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> we lack such a consensus. So the theorists are not working together.
I correct that. Theorists do not need to work together; theories can
be applied anywhere. It's the *designers* who are not working
together.
YKY
--
On 18/04/2008, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I believe AGI is basically a theoretical problem, which will be solved
> by a single person or a small group, with little funding.
I'm not sure I believe this. After working on this a bit, it has become
clear to me that there are more ideas
Linas Vepstas wrote:
Richard wrote:
Though it is unlikely to do so, because collaborative
open-source projects are best suited >to situations in which the
fundamental ideas behind the design has been solved.
Just having a large gang of programmers on an open-source project
does not addr
Linas,
Not all theoretical problems can or need to be solved by practical
testing. Also, in this field, no "infrastructure" is really
"theoretically neutral" --- OpenCog is clearly not suitable to test
all kinds of AGI theories, though I like the project, and is willing
to help.
Open-source will
On 4/19/08, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not all theoretical problems can or need to be solved by practical
> testing. Also, in this field, no "infrastructure" is really
> "theoretically neutral" --- OpenCog is clearly not suitable to test
> all kinds of AGI theories, though I like the pro
Richard,
Though I do believe I have the right idea, I surely know that there
are still issues I haven't fully solved. Therefore I don't really want
a big gang at now (that will only waste the time of mine and the
others), but a small-but-good gang, plus more time for myself ---
which means less gr
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 12:48 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> For this reason, I'm tempted to opensource my stuff, but where would
> be my compensation? Do I really HAVE to sacrifice my pay check...??
>
Yes, you do, as Wang's Theorem demonstrates.
You must persevere in yo
Pei: I don't really want
a big gang at now (that will only waste the time of mine and the
others), but a small-but-good gang, plus more time for myself ---
which means less group debates, I guess. ;-)
Alternatively, you could open your problems for group discussion &
think-tanking... I'm surp
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pei: I don't really want
>
> a big gang at now (that will only waste the time of mine and the
> others), but a small-but-good gang, plus more time for myself ---
> which means less group debates, I guess. ;-)
>
> Altern
YKY,
> > I believe I've solved the fundamental issues behind the Novamente/OpenCog
> > design...
>
> It's hard to tell whether you have really solved the AGI problem, at
> this stage. ;)
Understood...
> Also, your AGI framework has a lot of non-standard, home-brew stuff
> (especially the k
PEI'S SELF-DEFEATING LOOP WILL PROBABLY BE BROKEN WITHIN 3 TO 8 YEARS
Over then next 3 - 8 years there probably will arise from the level of AI
and AGI projects being funded an ever increasing appreciation and proof of
the power, generality, and potential of AGI --- enough so that funding of
large
--- Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe AGI is basically a theoretical problem, which will be solved
> by a single person or a small group, with little funding.
I think that we are still massively underestimating the cost of AGI, just as
we have been doing for the last 50 years. The v
On 4/19/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't claim that the Novamente/OpenCog design is the **only** way ... but I
> do
> note that the different parts are carefully designed to interoperate together
> in subtle ways, so replacing any one component w/ some standard system
> won't
On 18/04/2008, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (4) If the system is really general-purpose, then if it can give an
> impressive demo on one problem, it should be able to solve all kinds
> of problems to roughly the same level.
Thanks for the fun loop Pei, I think I break out at this level
--- "YKY (Yan King Yin)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/19/08, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not all theoretical problems can or need to be solved by practical
> > testing. Also, in this field, no "infrastructure" is really
> > "theoretically neutral" --- OpenCog is clearly not suitab
Matt, et al,
On 4/18/08, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > For this reason, I'm tempted to opensource my stuff, but where would
> > be my compensation? Do I really HAVE to sacrifice my pay check...??
>
> Not at all. I released most of my data compression software under
> GPL. If a
>
--- Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt, et al,
>
> On 4/18/08, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > For this reason, I'm tempted to opensource my stuff, but where would
> > > be my compensation? Do I really HAVE to sacrifice my pay check...??
> >
> > Not at all. I r
> Translation: We all (me included) now accept as reasonable that in order to
> briefly earn a living wage, that we must develop radically new and useful
> technology and then just give it away.
...
> Steve Richfield
The above is obviously a "straw man" statement ... but I think it
**is** true the
Until a true AGI is developed I think it will remain necessary to pay
programmers to write programs, at least some of the time. You can't
always rely upon voluntary effort, especially when the problem you
want to solve is fairly obscure.
On 19/04/2008, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Bob...
... and of course, OSS does not contradict paying programmers to write software.
I have no plans to dissolve Novamente LLC, for example ;-p ... we're
actually doing better than ever ...
And, I note that SIAI is now paying 2 programmers (one full time, one
3/5 time) to work on OpenCog spec
Bob, et al,
On 4/20/08, Bob Mottram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Until a true AGI is developed I think it will remain necessary to pay
> programmers to write programs, at least some of the time. You can't
> always rely upon voluntary effort, especially when the problem you
> want to solve is fa
On 21/04/2008, Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Of course, this constitutes a reductio ad absurdum situation establishing
> that the underlying assumption, that someone is going to build AGI, is very
> probably wrong.
>
Whoever comes up with a working AGI may be the last person you
8 Oak Crest Ave.
Austin, Texas, USA 78704
512.791.7860
- Original Message
From: Bob Mottram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 4:02:07 PM
Subject: Re: Open source (was Re: [agi] The Strange Loop of AGI Funding: now
logically proved!)
On 21/04/
32 matches
Mail list logo
