Re: Augmenting humans is a better way

From: Arona Ndiaye (
Date: Wed Aug 01 2001 - 23:10:52 MDT

Greetings to each and everyone =)

Quoting James Higgins:

I don't have to examine the Webmind design or code because no one can in
fact define exactly what Real AI is.

Oh, oh, oh !! But you can define exactly how my brains work ? Where is what
etc... If not, where would RNIs be safer, faster, better than SIAI, Fai or
whatever ? You seem to be pretty closed-minded on the whole issue. I can
feel you biased but I do not know why. _yet_ =)

Given a fully functioning General AI, the availability of strong nanotech,
and that this AI has access to nanotech (I find this VERY unlikely), then
yes. But what fool is going to give a seed AI access to nanotech? And
this still requires a functioning General AI that we still have no idea how
to build.

The same type of fool that believe that fully intelligent (same level as
FAI, self optimizing, etc....) RNIs will be here before SIAI or that RNIs
are more/less advanced. They are both far away, with pros and cons.
Which fruit is more a fruit than the other one ? The orange or the pear ?
None, they both are fruits, period.
Will all due respect, to me, you and that fool, do look
quite similar. Go take that Vision interface, come here and make it work on
my shattered knee caps =), then we'll talk =) By then FAI will be all over
the place =)

More developers = longer development cycle. It is a myth that adding
developers speeds up development! A professional typist would get in the
way, try using voice recognition (even good ones) for coding some ...

***Which part of ***

>>if it was the case
>that typing speeds were what was holding software creation back, you
>could simply throw more developers at a project and it would get done
>faster. Or hire professional typists and let the programmers talk really
>fast :-)

***did you not understand ?***
Indeed, you quoted Brian to say *exactly* what he said !!!? I'm missing
something here ! *smile*

I'm not biased! I'm simply trying to state that we don't have any real,
honest estimation of when we'll get either neural implants or general

*cough* we don't have an honest estimate/tion of anything at all !! That is
the whole point about creating SIAI =)
I was given 18 months to live at the end of 1997 for a lung condition. See
what I mean by estimate ?

Ok, Brian. We've been going back and forth and you have yet to even touch
on a response when I ask you the same type of question. So what is the
design for general AI? Please provide us with all the nifty details so
that we can actually compare the neural path with the general AI path and
make some informed projections.

Have you read anything at all on Low Beyond or the Singist website ? Did you
understand it ? Did you understand why you did not understand some of the
stuff ? What I mean is, are you able to understand **why** you do not
understand something ? Do you spend time on how you think ? Do you always
have a second 'James' who's tearing apart anything you do, think ? A 3rd
'James' ? 4th ? If not, go back to it, the answers are there. When you do
not understand **something in particular** please ask. Just saying: "Explain
!!!" will get you nowhere on this list. A preferred approach would be: " In
Section *xyz*, I seem to disagree with *abc* because *jkl*. I'm yet to see
you do that =)

YES! Oh, come on now, your going to tell us that you wouldn't want such an
implant yourself? Honestly.

***WHICH part of ***

For us yes,

***don't you understand ?***

Maaaaaaaan, all I see you do is slam at anything that you disagree with !!!?
I get excited, thinking you gonna shed some light on interesting stuff, but
no, you seem to read and understand only part of the stuff you read.
You wrote 350 something thousand lines of code in a year ? Well designed and
stuff ?? In what ? Basic ? If you can read a sentence and forget part of it
in the time it takes you to answer it, boooooooy, I don't want to look at
your code. Stop dissing Brian, no one cares whether you agree or not as long
you aren't pulling weight. There is a Lady Atkins on this list who was
really skeptical about the whole thing right at the begining, go read her
posts in the archives, and see what is a constructive way of discussing

Kind regards =)

P.S. You need a lot more testing with RNIs than with FAI for at the max a
10th of the advancement. Ratio = 1/10 = 0.1 = not worth it. Before you
disagree with me, re-read my words and don't forget or discard the bits you
don't want. When you said that you bet Brian did not know much about the
current state ot the art in RNIs, I had the faint feeling that what you
called 'state of the art' came from the 'Science & Technology' section of
the Sunday Times. I could be really mistaken, if so, show me or explain to
me the current state of the art ***that YOU do, did, were involved with***
You see, most ppl on this list, think, design, and try to implement working
stuff. By the way you talk, it would seem that you do the same insofar as
RNIs are concerned. Enlighten us =)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT