Thomas McCabe wrote:
On 4/18/08, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thomas McCabe wrote:
On 4/18/08, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You repeatedly insinuate, in your comments above, that the idea is not
taken seriously by anyone, in spite of the fact I have already made it
quite
clear that this is false.
The burden of proof is on you to show that someone takes your ideas
seriously. You have yet to link to a paper commenting on your work, or
a paper citing your work, or a blog which makes use of your ideas,
etc., etc.
Remember, the 'idea' at issue right now is the *challenge* that I issued to
Eliezer's approach to FAI.
If someone issues a challange to a set of ideas, the appropriate response
is not "Does anyone agree with the idea of this challenge?", but "Does the
challenged party have a coherent response to this challenge?".
Does NASA have a coherent response to the moon hoax theory?
This is completely uncalled for. No particular theory of AGI at this
time disserves to be compared to the moon hoax conspiracy theory or
alternatively, they all do. :-)
Of course
not; it isn't worth their time. This was used against NASA by the moon
hoaxers for years, until independent astronomers started posting
rebuttals. You must show that your theory is credible, or at least
reasonably popular, before people will take the time to refute it.
Popularity is irrelevant. While I am not an AGI researcher I
occasionally notice where the weak spots in various theories are and
speak up accordingly. There is no way I consider Richard Loosemore to
be some kind of crackpot. His theories appear as valid as any I have
read from Eliezer. Unless I missed a major development Eliezer's FAI
theory is not at a point where its validity can be reasonably
confidently judged.
Actually a true pet theory by your definition might well be the one
breakthrough wild idea that turns out to work. I think it is much too
early to be dismissive of anything beyond obvious nonsense.
If fai-logistics is not in fact working off Eliezer's ideas then exactly
what is the group using as its starting basis?
- samantha
-------------------------------------------
singularity
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=101816851-9a120b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
