<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Feb 2, 2011, at 1:42 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>Irrelevant. Google is narrow AI, not AGI.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I really don't think that the fastest growing company in the history of planet Earth is irrelevant. And speaking of irrelevancy, I would think that Analytical Graphics Incorporated is irrelevant, but maybe you were talking about the American Gunsmithing Institute. </div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>Venture capitalists have as much understanding of AGI as you do.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Thanks but I'm not an accountant so I think venture capitalists know more about Adjusted Gross Income than I do.</div><div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>They do not fund research, they fund products.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Blue sky speculations are a dime a dozen, but if you have a program based on your ideas that are new and the program actually does something interesting then I am sure those venture capitalists would make an investment. That's exactly what they did ten years ago when they ran across a little program called "Google" and they got very rich as a result. You need a way to stick your head above the horde of people claiming to know all about AI; but if all you have is some vague ideas and no program incorporating them nobody will give you a dime and no reason they should.</div><div> </div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"> There is no way you can guarantee that something smarter than you will always do what you want. <br></blockquote><br>Yes there is. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well I'm glad you cleared that up, before now I would have thought imbeciles leading geniuses was about as stable a society as a pencil balanced on its tip.</div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark</div><div><br></div></div></body></html>