From: James Higgins (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jun 26 2002 - 17:46:57 MDT
At 05:32 PM 6/26/2002 -0600, Ben Goertzel wrote:
>James Higgins wrote:
> > It would be better on the whole to have a single committee if at all
> > possible. And, yes, I do understand the complications and
> > reasons why this
> > is unlikely to happen. But that doesn't mean we should not try.
> > If such a
> > committee were formed I would not have any issues with it being
> > attached to
> > an entity such as the Singularity Institue, as long as most of
> > its members
> > weren't answerable to or involved in their development work.
> > Such a committee should be formed and at least made available for other
> > projects to utilize.
> > >I think that a broader discussion group should *also* be assembled,
> > >involving the more articulate and rational of the rabid
> > >anti-Singularitarians (Joy, Lanier, etc.) as well as
> > pro-technology people.
> > >This committee should be assembled in order to gather its opinions only,
> > >without a view toward decision-making.
> > An excellent idea.
>OK, so we basically do agree on this....
>I agree that a such an advisory committee would work best if not tied
>specifically to any one AI project.
>However, if such a thing were not convened by a group concerned with a
>particular AI project, then by whom?
>The SIAI, in my view, is not really a general organization for "AGI and the
>Singularity," it's an organization largely (though not entirely) devoted to
>Eliezer's particular approach to AGI and to Friendly AI. Perhaps that is
>not how it is intended, but that's how it comes across to me....
>It would be good to have something sorta like the SIAI, but explicitly NOT
>tied to any one AI approach, or any one approach to Friendliness.... Such
>an organization could be used to advocate the Singularity notion, and in
>time to convene this advisory committee that you've proposed...
>Specifically, this organization should not fund any AGI research directly,
>and though it might support work on the theory of the Singularity and
>Friendliness, it should aspire to be as open-minded as possible in this
>regard rather than developing a "pet theory"...
>However, I don't think there's any tremendous urgency to start such an
>organization this year. Sometime in the next 2-3 years would be good.
>-- Ben G
I agree with what you have said, including the time line. In fact, if
Eliezer were to agree with this idea I would consider progress having been
made on this front. Espicially if the two of you were willing to be on the
board to start things rolling when the time comes. The only trick after
that would be to keep the meme going until the time was appropriate.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:39 MDT