Oh well, my apologies! But my science/ technology distinction stands if tentatively - not because I want to score points but because it's important in itself. Your conference was about the technology of collective intelligence. I am and was aware that there has been a good deal of AI work here. But a science of collective or social intelligence is a very different though related ball game. It probably should be "social intelligence" - Surowiecki insists that the wisdom of crowds depends to a great extent upon the individuals being decentralised and not part of a collective, hierarchical organization.
P.S. I think your Wiki ref was interesting in underlining what is now a general principle: "Try and think of something new, and it's almost bound to be in Wikipedia already." (But that doesn't mean it's been done properly or fully). Ben:Mike, you've got me all wrong, in this particular regard!! My practical plan for creating AGI does in fact involve creating a society of AGI's, living in online virtual worlds like Second Life and Metaplace ... (Although, these AGI's will be able to share thoughts with each other, in a kind of collective memory and learning substrate, which is something that humans can't do ... so they'll really be what I've called a Mindplex rather than a society http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2003/mindplex.htm ) However, in principle, I do not agree with you that a society of AGI's is necessary for creating AGI's. Even though my practical plan is in fact to create a society of AGI's... Also, collective intelligence has been under study for decades in the systems theory world. In 2001 Francis Heylighen and I ran a conference in Brussels called Global Brain 0, which was focused on the notion of an emerging, increasingly cohesive global collective intelligence. I made a blog post on a related theme a couple days ago... http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/10/29/on-becoming-a-neuron/ -- Ben G On Oct 30, 2007 5:00 PM, Mike Tintner < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There is a certain irony, considering how much you guys have agonized (perfectly reasonably) about open-sourcing or "collectivising" the building of an AGI, that you should instantly dismiss the "collectivising" or distributing of the AGI itself (or themselves). (That Wisdom of Crowds book was only last year - I really think this is all still fairly virgin territory). Well put. (BTW as perspective here, I should point out that what I've raised calls for a whole new branch/dimension of social psychology - the study of collective intelligence. Not new to everyone ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/?&; -------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1098 - Release Date: 10/29/2007 9:28 AM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/?&; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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/?&; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1098 - Release Date: 10/29/2007 9:28 AM ----- 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=59279476-733df7
