From: Arona Ndiaye (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Feb 19 2002 - 04:37:47 MST
I've seen several posts in this thread which made me wonder:
"Did he/she read GISAI and CFAI several times 'each' ?????"
If he/she did, was it done with an open mind ? I think not. If I start
bla-bla-ing about planet disassembly without reading what the people who
formulated the hypothesis have to say, some pople on this list would get
pissed off. And rightly so. It works BOTH ways. I fully second Eli: there
***should have been** some progress **at least - really at least** at the
conceptual level on CFAI and GISAI. Questions asked here, ***were***
answered several times on the SL4 list which is archived online. Doing 'Sl4
archive' at google pulls it. Searching on the 'Low Beyond' pulls it. What I
cannot understand, is the 'unspoken' undercurrent biased attitude about CFAI
and GISAI. I'm no fu**ing genius, I'm an everyday average curious kid. If I
can grok most of what Eli writes, it's because I spend a lot of time trying
to see what he sees. I **spend a lot of time** trying to **see what Eliezer
was seeing** when writing/thinking about it. I 'hijack' his models. It's
only after having done so (having a clear model of Eli's way of thinking
about this - which is mutating as we speak) that I can
agree/disagree/update/improve the design/ thinking/model or take a tangent
if I wish to do so. I re-read CFAI and GISAI every few weeks, I think about
it most of my awaken hours. Certain questions cannot be answered in one or
two lines. There's no magic stuff, it's all inter-connected and elements can
only be understood if their profundly-complex relationships with other
elements are understood.
It is not my intention to offend anyone ( I mean it ==)), however, this list
is where I'd expect a certain level of 'minditronium'. Here more than
anywhere else is where I would expect a general 'what is he/she seeing when
saying that' attitude. Is 'expecting' where it went wrong ? *sweet smile*
Someone complained a few days ago that black holes were basic stuff that was
explained all over the place. That person wanted 'denser' content, less
VaporMindWare. I feel the same way. *sweet smile*
I repeat: I **do not intend** to offend anyone, but Eli wrote GISAI and CFAI
for people to read/study/hack it. I do not believe it's done as often as it
should be done. I also do not believe it has anything to do with how it's
written. For Arona's sakes !!!! This is the Extropians list. People should
be wanting to understand for the goddam sake of it, because understanding
correlates with knowledge increase. It should not matter how it is written
or what it smells or whether it likes coffee with/out milk *rolls eyes*. The
AI community is known to have NO vocabulary. Why should Eli not create his
own if he feels that some things need to be formalized instead of being
shoved under the carpet ? If Eli saw (or believed he did or does) where
Classical AI went wrong, so can I. If I can, so can everyone. The AI
community has been attempting AI without understanding the human brain and
that is stupid. Anyone trying to do that will never get anything done in AI.
Yet, that is what the AI community did. They all got funky with buzzwords
and 'Expert systems' and used AI everywhere it had nothing to do with AI.
Now that it's going down the drain coz of lack of results, anyone who even
pretends to try creating AI in a different way (hint: Friendly Seed AI ) ,
is shot down in flames. That's a loser attitude, period.
PS: English ain't even my mother tongue, if I can get it, how hard can it
'conceptually' be ? Honestly ? *waves to everyone*
PS2: And **no**, I-am-not-defending Eliezer, just in case someone was
jumping on that train. I just want people to read CFAI and GISAI, for real.
PS3: The worst of all that: Eli saw it coming and had a paragraph explaining
why he believed **his** approach to AI was different and was likely to
succeed where Classical AI failed..
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:40 MST