Funding AI

From: Tim May <tcmay.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 22:38:19 -0800

A slight sidetrack from pure Everything topics...

On Saturday, November 30, 2002, at 06:44 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
(stuff about physics which we are partly in agreement about, mostly not
in agreement about...no point in arguing it further right now)

> Well, that depends perhaps on what you mean by "new physics," I think.
>
> Right now our physics is basically stumped by most complex systems.
> We
> resort to
>
> -- computer simulations
> -- crude "phenomenological" models

Except I'll add that I don't agree physics is stumped by most complex
systems. Physics doesn't try to explain messy and grungy situations,
nor should it. Turbulence is a special case, and I expect progress will
be made, especially using math (which is why Navier-Stokes issues are
on the same list with other math problems for the prize money).
>>
...
>> (For example, some friends of mine are doing interesting work on using
>> systems of several million machine agents to data mine large amounts
>> of
>> financial data. It seems likely that this kind of work on machine
>> learning, pattern extraction, support vector machines, and a plethora
>> of other "AI tools" will have major effects on the world of economics
>> and forecasting. And on creating financial derivatives (synthetics)
>> which are alien to human thinkers/investors.)
>
> Yeah, financial forecasting with AI does not require Artificial General
> Intelligence (AGI) in any sense, it is a classic domain-specific
> narrow-AI
> application.
>
> Whereas, coming up with new physics will require a significant degree
> of
> general intelligence, I believe.
>
> In this sense, physics theorizing is certainly a much harder problem
> than
> financial prediction-- it's hard to argue with that!!
>
> I tend not to even consider that kind of narrow-AI work "AI" -- I just
> think
> of it as computer science. But I have to remind myself periodically
> that
> the mainstream of academia does consider this AI, and considers AGI
> work to
> be a foolish and faraway dream...
>

Funding is the key issue. Someday I'll write a thing for this list
about successes vs. failures in terms of auto-funding each successive
stage of a complex technological path. In a nutshell, the
electronics/computer industry was essentially self-funding for the past
50 years, with the products of 1962, for example, paying for the work
that led to the 1965 products. Same thing with aviation.

By contrast, space development and controlled fusion have not been. We
"know" that there exists a reasonable combination of ignition
temperature-containment time--cost that lies several orders of
magnitude away in Temp-time-power-cost space, but getting there is like
crossing the Gobi desert without any watering holes or fuel stops on
the way.

The difference between "island colonization" models, akin to colonizing
the fertile U.S. heartland (automobiles, aviation, electronics, etc.),
versus "desert travel" models, akin to funding the first commercial
fusion reactor or building the first space colony, is crucial.

It is unlikely that the "path to AI" will be successful if there are
not numerous intermediate successes and ways to make a _lot_ of money.

My tip to all AI workers is to look for those things. (This is more
than just banal advice about "try to make money," I am hoping. I have
seen too many tech enthusiasts clamoring for "moon shots" to fund what
they think is needed...))

The ""AGI" may come from the distant great-great grandchild of
financial AI systems.



--Tim May
"Dogs can't conceive of a group of cats without an alpha cat." --David
Honig, on the Cypherpunks list, 2001-11
Received on Sun Dec 01 2002 - 01:43:18 PST