From: Ben Goertzel (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Dec 11 2001 - 09:31:10 MST
"Secretive" was a word choice borne partly out of haste, but still I'm not
sure it was inappropriate
I actually don't know how secretive SIAI plans to be. Maybe my implicit
assumption was wrong.
OK, so your project is closed-source. Then the next question is, are you
going to make the mathematical and software-architecture details of your
project known to others, or not?
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf
Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: Adaptive Intelligence Inc - Incubation
Ben Goertzel wrote:
> The SIAI-style model of not-for-profit-but-secretive development has yet
> be validated.
Closed-source, yes. But why "secretive"? So far we've been totally open
about our design plans - especially with respect to Friendly AI design, of
course, but that's a separate issue - rather than trying to protect ideas,
as a for-profit would probably have to. I'm not saying that trade secrets
are unethical; I respect everyone's right to keep ideas or give them away
as they choose - but why call us secretive?
-- -- -- -- --
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 25 2013 - 04:00:32 MDT