Super Artificial Intelligence, a naive approach

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Your own claim, which we were working on, was 10^16 to 10^18.

10^15 is not roughly 10^16, nor even faintly 10^18, being one tenth the former, and one thousandth of the latter.

A goldfish is roughly human by that yardstick.

I also pointed to sources with precise values.

You can choose to pay attention to sketch values or go to the sources.

Use whichever you think is precise, which ever suits your fancy.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Here is the OP. Please point out that figure.



BTW, you totally borked your wiki links, but they don't mention such a figure either. Except for this one. Which simply doesn't have anything to do with synaptic anything. And this one, which cites 10¹⁸ as comparable to the human brain.

(1)
Click the first link you referenced from the original post, and scroll down to 10^15.

(2)
Read before assuming the worst.

 

[Aridas]

It appears that was a typo that put two links in one.

Right click and inspect the 10^18 link to see both links in one line.

I was already looking into that, actually. Looking at the exascale one, the 10^18 number appears.

Exascale computing would be considered as a significant achievement in computer engineering, for it is believed to be the order of processing power of the human brain at neural level (functional might be lower). It is, for instance, the target power of the Human Brain Project.

It looks like you pulled 10^15 and 10^16 out of nowhere, though.

 

[Aridas]

(1)
Click the first link you referenced from the original post, and scroll down to 10^15.

(2)
Read.

Synapses aren't transistors. Or directly equivalent to speed.

 

[desmirelle]

I also pointed to sources with precise values.

You can choose to pay attention to sketch values or go to the sources.

Use whichever you think is precise, whicher suits your fancy.

Whicher is not a word, now you're just making stuff up........... oops,

nevermind, it fits with every other thread you've posted, then.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I was already looking into that, actually. Looking at the exascale one, the 10^18 number appears.



It looks like you pulled 10^15 and 10^16 out of nowhere, though.

Go to the orders of magnitude link, and scroll down to 10^15.

I didn't conjure up any numbers, they are there.

 

[Aridas]

Whicher is not a word, now you're just making stuff up........... oops,

nevermind, it fits with every other thread you've posted, then.

Ehh. That's more a typo than a misused word, by the look of it. No need to stretch like that.

 

[MikeG]

As I probably said before, you just make **** up.

We now have a human brain calculating capacity measured in some known-only-to-Gordon parameter (let's call it horsepower, shall we?) in which the lowest end of the range is now revised to 1/ one thousandth the upper end (10^15 to 10^18). Well, that's really useful, isn't it.

What is does do nicely though is utterly demolish PGJ's bollocks from other threads proclaiming humans, and humans alone, as gods, because there are lots and lots of other animals which have computing power that falls within the range of greater than one thousandth of humans.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Whicher is not a word, now you're just making stuff up........... oops,

nevermind, it fits with every other thread you've posted, then.

Plesse pay attention.
My post was edited to fix the typo, precisely the same time you posted.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

We now have a human brain calculating capacity measured in some known-only-to-Gordon parameter (let's call it horsepower, shall we?) in which the lowest end of the range is now revised to 1/ one thousandth the upper end (10^15 to 10^18). Well, that's really useful, isn't it.

What is does do nicely though is utterly demolish PGJ's bollocks from other threads proclaiming humans, and humans alone, as gods, because there are lots and lots of other animals which have computing power that falls within the range of greater than one thousandth of humans.

See the Wikipedia source, regarding 10^15.
This was in the original post.

 

[Aridas]

Go to the orders of magnitude link, and scroll down to 10^15.

I didn't conjure up any numbers, they are there.

Synapse number =/= speed.

 

[MikeG]

Fixate on typos, PGJ, whilst your nonsense little makey-uppie world is being pulled apart around you.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Fixate on typos, PGJ, whilst your nonsense little makey-uppie world is being pulled apart around you.

You chose to ignore the sources in the original post, and like a 2 year old, you proceed to render your expressions foolish

 

[abaddon]

I also pointed to sources with precise values.

Nope.

Your links were, in order...

1. A pop-sci article unrelated to your ideas.
2. A youtube video.
3. A youtube video.
4. Two broken wiki links neither of which support you anyway.
5. IBM research which doesn't support you.
6. A youtube video.
7. Yourself.
8. Yourself.

#1 is useless.
#2 and #3 and #6. No thanks. yooboob is full of garbage.
#4 is not even vaguely related.
#5 does not support your ideas.
#7 and #8 are a prime example of circular reasoning.

You can choose to pay attention to sketch values or go to the sources.

Use whichever you think is precise, whicher suits your fancy.

I fancy checking your sources. I find that they either do not say what you claim, are unrelated or are YOU.

 

[abaddon]

You chose to ignore the sources in the original post, and like a 2 year old, you proceed to render your expressions foolish

Nope. I checked all of them. Your ideas are obvious baloney.

 

[hecd2]

He made up some convenient numbers. If we return to the op as he suggests, then he cites...

His citation does not support that but let's run with it.

He also says...

Since we have a range, let's go at the top end at 10¹⁸. Note that 10¹⁵ doesn't get a look-in. Why the top end of the range? Because PGJ wants an AI which at minimum equals human capability.

Inserting the values that PGJ claims in his OP we get...

snip

n = 26.6 years.

All of which ignores the limitations of Moore's Law.

And the fact that ops/sec might be a necessary condition for human level intelligence, but it is extremely unlikely to be sufficient.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Nope. I checked all of them. Your ideas are obvious baloney.

You may have missed the orders of magnitude Wikipedia URL, which gives minimum of 10^15.

 

[Aridas]

Fixate on typos, PGJ, whilst your nonsense little makey-uppie world is being pulled apart around you.

Ehh. No need to react like that, regardless. If you think that he's behaving badly, alright. He's done that already. Why descend to the level that you think that he's on, though? It gains you nothing and certainly doesn't help show that you are any better.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Nope.

Your links were, in order...

1. A pop-sci article unrelated to your ideas.
2. A youtube video.
3. A youtube video.
4. Two broken wiki links neither of which support you anyway.
5. IBM research which doesn't support you.6. A youtube video.
7. Yourself.
8. Yourself.

#1 is useless.
#2 and #3 and #6. No thanks. yooboob is full of garbage.
#4 is not even vaguely related.
#5 does not support your ideas.
#7 and #8 are a prime example of circular reasoning.


I fancy checking your sources. I find that they either do not say what you claim, are unrelated or are YOU.

[IMGw=640]http://i.imgur.com/7VCsWyq.jpg[/IMGw]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to reduce oversized picture

IBM's Dharmendra Modha would probably disagree.

His statement: "Before the end of 2020 we will be able to produce a brain in a box".
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UHPwIBiFVq0

 

[abaddon]

You may have missed the orders of magnitude Wikipedia URL, which gives minimum of 10^15.

Of the two wiki links you so ham-fistedly provided, only one mentions 10¹⁵, this one...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(numbers)

And it's entry reads...

10−15[edit]
(0.000000000000001; 1000−5; short scale: one quadrillionth; long scale: one billiardth)

ISO: femto- (f)

Well, duh.