"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote:
> > Really? Where is this writeen up? Where are the project development
> > plans? Where is the funding and staffing plan? I don't mean to pick on
> > you but I am hearing extravangant (imho) claims for one of the grandest
> > projects of all time but I am not seeing or hearing about much real
> > substance. Where is the beef?
> I said I thought I knew how to do it. I didn't say I had written it down,
> produced an architectural sketch and incremental developmental pathway,
> obtained funding, hired a group of highly intelligent engineers, and
> started work. It takes *time* to do all that. I'm certainly a heck of a
> lot visibly closer to "first line of code" than I was a couple of years
> back - compare CaTAI 2 with CaTAI 1.0; or compare "Time and Linearity" in
> CaTAI 2.2 with the earlier sections.
As I said, I am an engineer. Good theorie and ideas and intuitions are
wonderful. But at some point we have to go to writing it down and
having more eyeballs and heads mull it over and thinking about how to
actually lay the project out. This doesn't require design by committee
but it does require fairly thorough design and early inplementation and
experiment looping back to design. I know it takes time. Let me know
if I can be of assistance.
> Hey, if you think it's a good idea, write it up and send it in to your
> local journal. I'm not making a career out of that argument, any more
> than I made a career out of the 10^17 ops/sec @ 2025 estimate for human
> equivalence. I just have the responsibility of picking what seems like
> the best argument and making my best guess using it, whether peer-reviewed
> or not.
Actually, you are betting your strategy on such arguments and as you say
the stakes are really high, the highest imaginable. So it is quite
important to get these things on paper and turned inside out and
sideways my as many competent eyes as possible to get the maximum
confidence and understanding going forward. The responsibility is NOT
yours alone and your best guesses alone are not likely to suffice.
> > So exactly what is being done to produce the SI beyond the papers and
> > such? How do people get involved if interested and possessing needed
> > talents or desiring to invest?
> Events occur in the following sequence:
> 1) We receive tax-exempt status from the IRS.
> 2) The AI project is put into initiable form (i.e., design moved down to
> a level low enough that highly intelligent engineers can start work on
> it. See previous comment about comparing "Time and Linearity" versus
> "CaTAI 1.0".)
> 3a) We obtain funding (private foundations or individuals) to hire some
> number of highly intelligent engineers;
> 3b) We find highly intelligent engineers who are willing to be hired;
> 4) Engineers are hired and work starts.
Cool. But while (1) is being waited on and (2) is moving apace, it sure
seems like some planning/ordering steps of development and noting
dependencies and stuff would give a running start to (4) and also
provide critical sizing estimates for (3a,b). I am curious about (2),
in what form and to what degree do you see the design "moved down to a
level low enough" being acheived?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:20 MDT