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
