From: Ben Goertzel (ben@goertzel.org)
Date: Sat Jan 21 2006 - 17:44:33 MST
> My guess about what would be enough to convince is probably some massive
> technical explanation of what the theory is, how it is different fom old
> stuff, and why it will necessarily gives rise to intelligence. In order to
> overcome their presumptions, you would probably ALSO have to point out the
> presumption they are making (as discussed above), quite as specifically as
> we are here, and expain to them why that assumption is not well calibrated.
> Perhaps after some convincing they will say "Holy crap, you people are WAY
> smarter than me, and I believe you."
What happens at this point, much of the time, is
* the potential investor cannot understand your massive technical
explanation, either due to lack of background or lack of willingness
to invest the needed time
* so, they call in some "AI expert", usually from academia, to
evaluate your explanation
* the AI expert doesn't want to take the time to really understand
what you're talking about, and doesn't want to admit you might really
be onto something, so he just gives a simplistic negative report
(without any real technical substance to it) to the investor
To counter this requires that you have your own AI experts with a
strong reputation on board, and/or (preferably and) that your massive
technical explanation be boilable-down into a story that is extremely
convincing to investors with little relevant background and little
time to spend listening.
-- Ben
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT