singularity  

Messages by Date

• 2007/03/07 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe (second thought!) Richard Loosemore
• 2007/03/07 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Russell Wallace
• 2007/03/07 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Richard Loosemore
• 2007/03/07 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Eugen Leitl
• 2007/03/07 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Richard Loosemore
• 2007/03/07 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Shane Legg
• 2007/03/07 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe John Ku
• 2007/03/07 [singularity] Ethical code to prevent humans abusing robots Richard Loosemore
• 2007/03/07 Re: [singularity] Uselessness of AIXI Richard Loosemore
• 2007/03/07 Re: [singularity] Uselessness of AIXI Ben Goertzel
• 2007/03/07 Re: [singularity] Why We are Almost Certainly not in a Simulation Stathis Papaioannou
• 2007/03/07 Re: [singularity] Uselessness of AIXI Shane Legg
• 2007/03/07 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Shane Legg
• 2007/03/07 Re: [singularity] Why We are Almost Certainly not in a Simulation Mitchell Porter
• 2007/03/07 Re: [singularity] Why We are Almost Certainly not in a Simulation Stathis Papaioannou
• 2007/03/06 Re: [singularity] Why We are Almost Certainly not in a Simulation Charles D Hixson
• 2007/03/06 Re: [singularity] Uselessness of AIXI Ben Goertzel
• 2007/03/06 Re: [singularity] Uselessness of AIXI Matt Mahoney
• 2007/03/06 [singularity] Uselessness of AIXI Ben Goertzel
• 2007/03/06 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Mitchell Porter
• 2007/03/06 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Shane Legg
• 2007/03/05 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Matt Mahoney
• 2007/03/05 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Stathis Papaioannou
• 2007/03/05 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Mitchell Porter
• 2007/03/05 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Bruce LaDuke
• 2007/03/05 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe deering
• 2007/03/05 Re: [singularity] No non-circular argument for deduction? gts
• 2007/03/05 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Russell Wallace
• 2007/03/05 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Matt Mahoney
• 2007/03/05 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe John Ku
• 2007/03/05 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Richard Loosemore
• 2007/03/05 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Richard Loosemore
• 2007/03/05 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Shane Legg
• 2007/03/05 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Stathis Papaioannou
• 2007/03/05 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Ben Goertzel
• 2007/03/05 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Shane Legg
• 2007/03/05 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe John Ku
• 2007/03/05 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Stathis Papaioannou
• 2007/03/04 [singularity] AGI+LE Poll Question (results) Bruce Klein
• 2007/03/04 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe John Ku
• 2007/03/04 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Jef Allbright
• 2007/03/04 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Matt Mahoney
• 2007/03/04 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Bruce LaDuke
• 2007/03/04 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Ben Goertzel
• 2007/03/04 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Richard Loosemore
• 2007/03/04 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Ben Goertzel
• 2007/03/04 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Richard Loosemore
• 2007/03/03 Re: [singularity] Why We are Almost Certainly not in a Simulation John Ku
• 2007/03/03 Re: [singularity] No non-circular argument for deduction? gts
• 2007/03/03 Re: [singularity] Why We are Almost Certainly not in a Simulation Jef Allbright
• 2007/03/03 Re: [singularity] Why We are Almost Certainly not in a Simulation Matt Mahoney
• 2007/03/03 Re: [singularity] Why We are Almost Certainly not in a Simulation Charles D Hixson
• 2007/03/03 Re: [singularity] Why We are Almost Certainly not in a Simulation Jef Allbright
• 2007/03/03 Re: [singularity] Why We are Almost Certainly not in a Simulation Matt Mahoney
• 2007/03/03 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Matt Mahoney
• 2007/03/03 Re: [singularity] No non-circular argument for deduction? BillK
• 2007/03/03 Re: [singularity] No non-circular argument for deduction? Jef Allbright
• 2007/03/03 Re: [singularity] No non-circular argument for deduction? Eugen Leitl
• 2007/03/03 Re: [singularity] No non-circular argument for deduction? gts
• 2007/03/03 Re: [singularity] Why We are Almost Certainly not in a Simulation gts
• 2007/03/03 Re: [singularity] No non-circular argument for deduction? Jef Allbright
• 2007/03/03 Re: [singularity] No non-circular argument for deduction? gts
• 2007/03/03 Re: [singularity] No non-circular argument for deduction? Jef Allbright
• 2007/03/03 Re: [singularity] No non-circular argument for deduction? gts
• 2007/03/02 Re: [singularity] Why We are Almost Certainly not in a Simulation Bruce LaDuke
• 2007/03/02 Re: [singularity] Why We are Almost Certainly not in a Simulation Stathis Papaioannou
• 2007/03/02 Re: [singularity] No non-circular argument for deduction? Russell Wallace
• 2007/03/02 Re: [singularity] Why We are Almost Certainly not in a Simulation Mitchell Porter
• 2007/03/02 Re: [singularity] No non-circular argument for deduction? John Ku
• 2007/03/02 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Jef Allbright
• 2007/03/02 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Matt Mahoney
• 2007/03/02 [singularity] No non-circular argument for deduction? gts
• 2007/03/02 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Jef Allbright
• 2007/03/02 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Richard Loosemore
• 2007/03/02 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Matt Mahoney
• 2007/03/02 Re: [singularity] Why We are Almost Certainly not in a Simulation Eugen Leitl
• 2007/03/02 Re: [singularity] Why We are Almost Certainly not in a Simulation Stathis Papaioannou
• 2007/03/02 Re: [singularity] Why We are Almost Certainly not in a Simulation Eugen Leitl
• 2007/03/02 Re: [singularity] Why We are Almost Certainly not in a Simulation Stathis Papaioannou
• 2007/03/02 Re: [singularity] Why We are Almost Certainly not in a Simulation John Ku
• 2007/03/01 RE: [singularity] Why We are Almost Certainly not in a Simulation Mitchell Porter
• 2007/03/01 [singularity] Re: Why We are Almost Certainly not in a Simulation John Ku
• 2007/03/01 [singularity] Why We are Almost Certainly not in a Simulation John Ku
• 2007/03/01 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Jef Allbright
• 2007/03/01 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Matt Mahoney
• 2007/03/01 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Ben Goertzel
• 2007/03/01 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Jef Allbright
• 2007/03/01 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Matt Mahoney
• 2007/03/01 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Jef Allbright
• 2007/03/01 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Matt Mahoney
• 2007/03/01 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Richard Loosemore
• 2007/03/01 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Matt Mahoney
• 2007/03/01 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Richard Loosemore
• 2007/03/01 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Shane Legg
• 2007/03/01 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Eugen Leitl
• 2007/03/01 Re: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Stathis Papaioannou
• 2007/02/28 RE: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Matt Mahoney
• 2007/02/28 RE: [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Mitchell Porter
• 2007/02/28 [singularity] Scenarios for a simulated universe Matt Mahoney
• 2007/02/26 Re: [singularity] Poll = AGI Motivation / Life Extension? Stathis Papaioannou
• 2007/02/26 [singularity] Short singularity video Chuck Esterbrook
• 2007/02/26 Re: [singularity] Poll = AGI Motivation / Life Extension? Matt Mahoney
• 2007/02/26 Re: [singularity] Poll = AGI Motivation / Life Extension? Bruce LaDuke
• 2007/02/26 Re: [singularity] Poll = AGI Motivation / Life Extension? Stephen Reed
• 2007/02/21 [singularity] Transhumanist w/ Goertzel (in SF, Feb 27) Bruce Klein
• 2007/02/19 Re: [singularity] Vinge & Goerzel = Uplift Academy's Good Ancestor Principle Workshop 2007 Anna Taylor
• 2007/02/19 [singularity] Poll = AGI Motivation / Life Extension? Joel Pitt
• 2007/02/19 Re: [singularity] Vinge & Goerzel = Uplift Academy's Good Ancestor Principle Workshop 2007 Shane Legg
• 2007/02/19 Re: [singularity] Poll = AGI Motivation / Life Extension? Bruce Klein
• 2007/02/19 Re: [singularity] Vinge & Goerzel = Uplift Academy's Good Ancestor Principle Workshop 2007 Ben Goertzel
• 2007/02/19 Re: [singularity] Vinge & Goerzel = Uplift Academy's Good Ancestor Principle Workshop 2007 Joshua Fox
• 2007/02/18 [singularity] Poll = AGI Motivation / Life Extension? Bruce Klein
• 2007/02/10 [singularity] Vinge & Goerzel = Uplift Academy's Good Ancestor Principle Workshop 2007 Bruce Klein
• 2007/01/19 Re: [singularity] Chaitin randomness Benjamin Goertzel
• 2007/01/19 [singularity] Chaitin randomness gts
• 2006/12/28 [singularity] BBC on AI Joshua Fox
• 2006/12/20 Re: [singularity] Storytelling, empathy and AI Lúcio de Souza Coelho
• 2006/12/20 [singularity] Storytelling, empathy and AI Ben Goertzel
• 2006/12/20 Re: Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ?? Ben Goertzel
• 2006/12/20 Re: Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ?? Joshua Fox
• 2006/12/15 Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ?? Ben Goertzel
• 2006/12/15 Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ?? Hank Conn
• 2006/12/12 Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ?? Ben Goertzel
• 2006/12/12 Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ?? Josh Treadwell
• 2006/12/12 Re: Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ?? Ben Goertzel
• 2006/12/12 Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ?? Joshua Fox
• 2006/12/11 Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ?? Russell Wallace
• 2006/12/11 Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ?? Chuck Esterbrook
• 2006/12/11 Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ?? Ben Goertzel
• 2006/12/11 Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ?? Chuck Esterbrook
• 2006/12/11 Re: Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ?? Ben Goertzel
• 2006/12/11 Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ?? Bo Morgan
• 2006/12/11 Re: Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ?? Ben Goertzel
• 2006/12/11 Re: [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ?? Joshua Fox
• 2006/12/11 [singularity] Ten years to the Singularity ?? Ben Goertzel
• 2006/11/02 Re: [singularity] RE: the musical singularity Joel Pitt
• 2006/11/01 Re: [singularity] Fwd: "After Life" by Simon Funk Matt Mahoney
• 2006/10/31 [singularity] Goertzel meets Sirius Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/31 Re: [singularity] Fwd: "After Life" by Simon Funk Chris Norwood
• 2006/10/31 [singularity] DC Future Salon - Metaverse Roadmap - Weds Nov 8, 7-9 PM Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/30 Re: [singularity] Re: Motivational Systems that are stable Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/30 [singularity] Re: Motivational Systems that are stable Richard Loosemore
• 2006/10/30 Re: Re: [agi] Re: [singularity] Motivational Systems that are stable Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/30 Re: [agi] Re: [singularity] Motivational Systems that are stable Richard Loosemore
• 2006/10/30 Re: [singularity] Motivational Systems that are stable Richard Loosemore
• 2006/10/30 Re: Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Lúcio de Souza Coelho
• 2006/10/30 Re: [singularity] Animal rights Lúcio de Souza Coelho
• 2006/10/29 [singularity] Fwd: "After Life" by Simon Funk Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/29 Re: [agi] Re: [singularity] Motivational Systems that are stable Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/29 RE: [singularity] Motivational Systems that are stable Mitchell Porter
• 2006/10/28 Re: [singularity] Motivational Systems that are stable Richard Loosemore
• 2006/10/28 Re: Re: [singularity] Re: [agi] Motivational Systems that are stable Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/28 Re: [singularity] Re: [agi] Motivational Systems that are stable Richard Loosemore
• 2006/10/28 Re: Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/27 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Anna Taylor
• 2006/10/27 [singularity] Re: [agi] Motivational Systems that are stable Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/27 [singularity] Animal rights Matt Mahoney
• 2006/10/27 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Matt Mahoney
• 2006/10/27 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk BillK
• 2006/10/27 Re: Re: [singularity] Motivational Systems that are stable Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/27 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Anna Taylor
• 2006/10/27 [singularity] Language processing Matt Mahoney
• 2006/10/27 Re: [singularity] Motivational Systems that are stable Richard Loosemore
• 2006/10/27 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Richard Loosemore
• 2006/10/26 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Kaj Sotala
• 2006/10/26 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Matt Mahoney
• 2006/10/26 Re: Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Lúcio de Souza Coelho
• 2006/10/26 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Richard Loosemore
• 2006/10/26 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Richard Loosemore
• 2006/10/26 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity deering
• 2006/10/26 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Josh Cowan
• 2006/10/26 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Matt Mahoney
• 2006/10/26 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Matt Mahoney
• 2006/10/26 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Chris Norwood
• 2006/10/26 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Matt Mahoney
• 2006/10/26 Re: Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/26 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Kaj Sotala
• 2006/10/26 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Starglider
• 2006/10/25 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Matt Mahoney
• 2006/10/25 Re: [singularity] Motivational Systems that are stable Anna Taylor
• 2006/10/25 Re: [singularity] Motivational Systems that are stable Richard Loosemore
• 2006/10/25 Re: [singularity] Motivational Systems that are stable Anna Taylor
• 2006/10/25 [singularity] AGIRI's 3rd Workshop Bruce J. Klein
• 2006/10/25 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Starglider
• 2006/10/25 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Matt Mahoney
• 2006/10/25 [singularity] Motivational Systems that are stable Richard Loosemore
• 2006/10/25 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Richard Loosemore
• 2006/10/24 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Starglider
• 2006/10/24 Re: Re: Re: Re: [singularity] Kurzweil vs. de Garis - You Vote! Russell Wallace
• 2006/10/24 Re: Re: Re: Re: [singularity] Kurzweil vs. de Garis - You Vote! Chuck Esterbrook
• 2006/10/24 Re: Re: Re: [singularity] Kurzweil vs. de Garis - You Vote! Russell Wallace
• 2006/10/24 Re: Re: Re: [singularity] Kurzweil vs. de Garis - You Vote! Neil H.
• 2006/10/24 Re: Re: Re: Re: [singularity] Kurzweil vs. de Garis - You Vote! Joel Pitt
• 2006/10/24 Re: Re: Re: Re: [singularity] Kurzweil vs. de Garis - You Vote! Russell Wallace
• 2006/10/24 Re: Re: Re: Re: [singularity] Kurzweil vs. de Garis - You Vote! Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/24 Re: Re: Re: [singularity] Kurzweil vs. de Garis - You Vote! Russell Wallace
• 2006/10/24 Re: Re: Re: [singularity] Kurzweil vs. de Garis - You Vote! Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/24 Re: Re: [singularity] Kurzweil vs. de Garis - You Vote! Russell Wallace
• 2006/10/24 Re: Re: [singularity] Kurzweil vs. de Garis - You Vote! Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/24 Re: [singularity] Kurzweil vs. de Garis - You Vote! Hank Conn

• Earlier messages
• Later messages