Re: Loosemore's Proposal

From: Russell Wallace (
Date: Mon Oct 24 2005 - 16:56:35 MDT

On 10/24/05, Ben Goertzel <> wrote:
> I agree that better software tools would help make the process a lot
> easier,
> even though I have a feeling your vision of better software tools is a bit
> overidealistic.

Off the top of my head I can't really think of much that software tools
could do to make the problem easier (compared to a good compiler, editor/IDE
and set of libraries for (insert favorite programming language)), but I'm
willing to be proved wrong.

However, I have chosen to focus on AGI itself rather than on building better
> tools, because I've judged that given my limited resources, I'll probably
> get to AGI faster via focusing on AGI than via focusing on tools first.
> While tools work is conceptually easier than AGI work by far, it still
> requires a lot of thought and a lot of manpower.


I would be more interested in your tools ideas if they were presented in a
> more concrete way.

Agreed. Richard, I think you and the people you're debating with are mostly
talking past each other, because you're using language that just isn't up to
the job. I'd be interested in seeing a draft specification for the
tools/framework/whatever you want to build, with specifics on how you think
it would help; if you could write up something like that, we could at least
provide more constructive criticism.

- Russell

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:52 MDT