On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:16 AM, Samantha Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thomas McCabe wrote: > > > > > 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. :-)
Obviously, Richard's theories are not as nonsensical as the moon hoax nutcases. It was simply the first example that sprang to mind. > > 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. Popularity, of course, is not the ultimate judge of accuracy. But are you seriously claiming that how many people support a theory is totally uncorrelated with the accuracy of said theory? Even after the theory has been debated for years? > 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. If you look at Richard Loosemore's blog (http://susaro.com/), you will essentially find an extremely-long-winded restatement of Rice's Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice's_theorem), and a non-canonical redefinition of the word "complexity". This is not a great deal of intellectual content, considering the volume of Richard's posts. Compare one of his five-page posts to, say, this statement of a general workaround by Eliezer: "Rice's Theorem states that it is not possible to distinguish whether an arbitrary computer program implements any function, including, say, simple multiplication. And yet, despite Rice's Theorem, modern chip engineers create computer chips that implement multiplication. Chip engineers select, from all the vast space of possibilities, only those chip designs which they can understand." > 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/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- - Tom http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/tom ------------------------------------------- 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
