After a month-long period of taking it easy and getting away from all the noise (then again, Florida has its own set of noises it seems), I decided to reach out to ScIAM company again and see what the hold up was regarding their website, and to try and extract a little bit more information on their supposed design of ‘Human Intelligence Emulation’ (HIE).
I will provide my email exchange to him this time around, and will include Mr. Russell Swanborough’s (Managing Director of ScIAM) response in red highlight.
I’d also like to make note that, soon after our second email exchange and publishing it here on my blog, I was then contacted by one of my readers who informed me that Mr. Swanborough is a member of the Lifeboat Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to encouraging scientific and technological advancements while helping humanity survive from any possible existential risks said technological advancements may incur. He’s also a member of several of Lifeboat’s boards, in particular their Business Board, Complex Systems Board, Finance Board, Information Sciences Board, Policy Board, and Robotics/AI Board.
Having said all that, I now wish to present our third email exchange below:
Hello Mr. Swanborough,
It’s been a while since we’ve last been in contact. I’ve been vacationing since the end of June in Florida. Hope all has been well on your end.
I was hoping we could start where we left off of by the beginning of last month. Particularly that of ScIAM’s website, which has yet to be updated. Since it’s now July, will we be seeing a new ScIAM webpage soon, and will the website display your current design of “Human Intelligence Emulation”?
Speaking of HIE, let me first thank you for sending a PDF format of Serebriakoff’s work. I’d no idea you were friends with him. It intrigues me greatly!
Reading over the document, which I by no means have finished it yet, it appears to be written by a very passionate person in their ideas. This is a great thing, don’t get me wrong, but then I’m also still a bit skeptical, because it doesn’t actually provide the hard evidence people look for in order to truly formulate an open minded opinion.
For example, I was previously working with the asteroid mining company Planetary Resources in helping fund an open-source space telescope that’ll be used by the community in general. The campaign has since ended and was successful, resulting in pulling in $1.5 million for its funding. (http://kck.st/15gdqd9) The reason we’re so successful in this – to achieve so much support and belief in what we’re doing – is because we have all the specs and details laid out to the general public. We have a life-size model which people can observe and touch. The people know we’re serious and mean business with our ideas and designs.
So for ScIAM, I’m curious if/when your HIE will be presented to the public? Will this come alongside the newly designed website for your company? Or are you trying to wait for the right time in presenting it to the masses themselves? Surely, if actual HIE’s been developed, this would literally change everything in the fields of STEM!
I look forward to reading your next response!
Thanks for the note.
The website is under construction, we had some priority issues with our in-house developer.
We can demo HIE on-site right now. It has three parts: Set-It, Know-It and Get-It. Our demo version is trained for a manufacturing environment and we seek other partners to help us train them for other types of user – banking, retail, mining, etc.
We also seek commercial partners to sell/market Set-It on our behalf (with the other components probably becoming available towards the end of the year).
Set-It is available immediately – it sets real-time goals, objectives and activities to drive achievement of corrected and improved strategy (far superior to score-cards or maps); it also assigns accountability and tracks achievement.
Know–It is demonstrable but still needs an improved commercial face – it establishes all the information that needs to be consumed or generated in achievement of the strategy. It also designs the processes real-time, as it should be.
Both Set-It and Know-It are for any environment – government, commercial, charity or whatever.
Get-It is also demonstrable but needs tailoring to the user (it is the producer of work tickets or commands to automated manufacturing or machinery).
They work so well because they are based on a new science, not best-practice dead-reckoning like all other approaches.
We could explain in detail how it all works but then we would lose the exclusivity of the IP. Anyway, at present we don’t need to explain it, just show it.
I hasten to add that our users are very happy, it’s just getting interest outside South Africa that seems a challenge at present.
Strangely, we have had virtually no response to our marketing on any platform. Not even a sceptic coming to see us. It seems that the world is not yet ready for something that can be more intelligent than humans.
This not worrisome, just curious. Maybe you have some ideas why this is so? It may make an interesting article…
So far there have been a number of categories of response to written explanations of what we do from international organisations.
1. Zip – No response at all.
2. Bluff – “You’re only pretending that you have it.”
3. Concealment – “You just want to know what WE’RE doing.”
4. Ego – “Only OUR organisation could possibly be advanced enough to do that.”
5. Jealousy – “We want to get there first so we won’t even acknowledge that you’re in the race.”
6. Ignorance – “I didn’t even know that what you are doing could be done.”
7. Religion – “It is sacrilegious and blasphemous to attempt to duplicate what only god can do.”
8. Disbelief – “No-one can do that; not anyone; it’s impossible.”
9. Scorn – “Your methods couldn’t possibly get the results that you claim you are getting”.
10. Dismissal – “So what! What you’re doing means absolutely nothing to me.”
11. Too late – “We’re already doing it, but we’re not going to tell you how”.
12. Not invented here – “If it’s not from MIT or Harvard then it’s probably nonsense.”
13. Anger – “Don’t peddle your stupid ideas here.”
Only a very few have said:
14. I’m interested – “Tell me more and how this can benefit me.”
The most ‘promising’ contact suggested was Ben Goertzel, recommended by Kurzweil’s Amara D Angelica. He asked for evidence of IP and then stopped responding; probably a category 4, 5, 9 or 12 but I may be wrong.
A very promising email exchange, I’d argue. But then much of the information I’m seeking, as I’m sure others are seeking as well, won’t be presented until ScIAM’s website is up and operational. There’s not much else we can gather, I don’t believe, until something tangible, or at least presentable, is provided.
I wish the best of luck to Mr. Swanborough and ScIAM company and hope to see HIE development very soon in the near future!
If anymore email exchanges occur between I and Mr. Swanborough, I’ll be sure that everyone here knows of it.