[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard,
Kindly just let it go. I'm new to the list and not really familiar
with everyone's idiosyncracies. What I was applauding was what I
perceive as his remark's unwillingness to consider as somehow passe and
irrelevent the particularly human concerns and real pragmatic human
experiences of everyday life and consciousness. There is a general
conception in the public that the AGI community is free-floating above
"reality" and chomping at the bits to distance itself even further, soon
as possible.
For example, though lacking in the immediate academic background, I'm
reading though the recent series of posts about CEV, which I gather to
mean something like the much-to-be-desired
super-automated-no-direct-human-intervention-necessary software
calculation which may be arising fast on the heels of the singularity
seed moment in which the summation of all human goals and desires are
vectored out and achieved, (sorry neither history or experience or
cultural life is any longer necessary -- we'll just compute the final
answer for you: it's 5.3), and I think one could be given a little slack
if it seemed borderline nutso to them.
Ben tried to frame it mathematical terms. OK, circular or not circular
, but why not ask the more obvious questions. Like why on earth would
any I (regardles of either the A or the G) imagine that the sum vector
of all human desires and volitions and conceptions, what have you,
amounts to anything remotely worth or capable of implementing. It is
like asking what are all the sums of all the color spectrum elements
visible in surrounding nature and then deciding to make everything
easier and paradisical for everyone and simulate the world grey. But
only like that in slightest terms... actually it's much more unwieldy
and meaningless than that by far.
Well -- just having fun with rhetoric. And I really should try and
keep quiet longer till I've absorbed more. Pretty difficult
sometimes. Fascinating sub-culture here. You cannot deny, I think,
after any reflection, that what is really of interest is the
collective, (is it even expressible as the result of some warped
super-vector?) set of motivations, psychological histories, biographies,
and quirks of a mental and emotional nature of the sum of people
involved in AGI, and I suppose as a worthwhile subgroup, those here
discussing.
What I want to make clear I did not mean, was anything like pointing to
you specifically as a fantasist.
No offence taken.
There is a kind of a "Frankenstein" category of posts here, which I tend
to react to, where people come out with blanket attacks on AI,
denigrating it in sweeping terms, without careful argument, and usually
including lots of wild, negative assumptions that really should not be
there. I felt that Mike's comment was in that category, that's all.
Richard Loosemore
~Robert S.
-------------- Original message from Richard Loosemore
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: --------------
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >
> > I have to applaud this comment, and it's general tenor.
> >
> > -------------- Original message from "Mike Tintner"
> > : --------------
> >
> >
> > > Every speculation on this board about the nature of future AGI's
> > has been
> > > pure fantasy. Even those which try to dress themselves up in
some
> > semblance
> > > of scientific reasoning.
> > [snip Long Rant]
>
> That is a shame, especially given Mike's record of posts on this
list.
> ost people here would say that he confuses his own lack of
understanding
> with the fact that what he read s is p ure fantasy.
>
> While there are many, many people who just churn out pure-fantasy
ideas
> about artificial intelligence (Exhibit One: 99% of the science
fiction
> literature), the purpose of this list is (among other things) to
allow
> some people who know about the technical details to make informed
estimates.
>
> As I said before, Mike's sweeping dismissal could be used to
condemn the
> work of the Wright brothers, a year before they got off the
ground, or
> the work of Wernher von Braun et al, ten years before they got a
human
> on the Moon, or the work of any other group of scientists in the
years
> leading up to their discoveries.
>
>
>
> Richard Loosemore
>
> -----
> 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/?&id_s ecret=57872777-74539a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/?&;
<http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;>
-----
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/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=57925069-336183
