• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Super Artificial Intelligence, a naive approach

MikeG said:
No, because being caught claiming that 10^15 is roughly 10^16 isn't being stumped at all, is it.
Click to expand...

(1)
That range was a sketch.
With that sketch I linked to a range of precise values.

You may or may not choose to approach the values in the links.

Choose whatever values suit your agenda/fancy.


(2)
Anyway, roughly may mean approximately, or in the area of.

Conclusion: The human brain may be larger than 10^15..., but I included 10^15 in the calculations, as a lower bound, hence "at least 2020" expression.
You may continue to argue on non issues, but I shan't any longer participate.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
........Anyway, roughly may mean approximately, or in the area of.........
Click to expand...

Thanks. I speak English much better than you. I know what roughly means. It doesn't mean "10% of".

"This 100 storey skyscraper we're building............we've built 10 floors, so we're roughly finished."

"We've run 2 and a half miles, so we've roughly finished the marathon."
 
PGJ could you keep your images within a width of 1000 pixels (it's a forum rule) because you mess with the page formatting. 800 is better because it then works with mobile devices.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Keep in mind that it was I that provided that link.
Click to expand...

Sadly, that doesn't actually say all that much. I've seen a lot of people, including people who I consider to be quite intelligent, provide links that either don't even remotely say what they claim that they said (such as providing a link to a story about a woman who used a voting machine with calibration issues that were apparently fixed right after when it was brought to the staff's attention, but still managed to vote for the candidate that they wanted to back up the claim that there was massive voter fraud on the scale that all the votes in some largely Republican precincts were counted as votes for the Democrats was just one memorable example) or that managed to directly contradict their claims, as has happened many, many times on these forums. Confirmation bias is something that one should always be on guard against.

ETA: Of course, there's a real question left here about which link you're talking about. I was addressing your usage of the brain inspired computing one more specifically. If you were actually referring to the exascale one, I'd pretty much just be responding by continuing to wonder why the actual arguments and claims that you've invoked have been you pretty much just grasping at straws when you've got something at least decent to use as a base point.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
(1)
That range was a sketch.
With that sketch I linked to a range of precise values.

You may or may not choose to approach the values in the links.

Choose whatever values suit your agenda/fancy.
Click to expand...

You still have yet to give any reason to accept that 10^15 or 10^16 were valid to use in the first place, given that your 10^15 referred to something notably different than what you claimed and your 10^16 still appears to be pulled out of thin air, given that nothing in either of those links supports it at all.


ProgrammingGodJordan said:
(2)
Anyway, roughly may mean approximately, or in the area of.

Conclusion: The human brain may be larger than 10^15..., but I included 10^15 in the calculations, as a lower bound, hence "at least 2020" expression.
Click to expand...

Again, what is your lower bound actually based on at this point, if not you trying to cover up your mistakes? You've utterly failed to support it meaningfully.
 
Aridas said:
You still have yet to give any reason to accept that 10^15 or 10^16 were valid to use in the first place, given that your 10^15 referred to something notably different than what you claimed and your 10^16 still appears to be pulled out of thin air, given that nothing in either of those links supports it at all.



Again, what is your lower bound actually based on at this point, if not you trying to cover up your mistakes? You've utterly failed to support it meaningfully.
Click to expand...


How my 3 year old nephew explains it:

(1) The human brain is at least 10^15... in computational size. (as seen in the original post)

(2) Using this lower bound, we can use formulae to obtain some minimum year 2020. (As mentioned in the original post)

You may or may not learn something from my 3 year old nephew.

(You may choose to proceed in pursuing that non issue, but I shan't any longer partake)
 
Last edited:
Orphia Nay said:
This is getting more like Time Cube by the minute.

What programming have you done?
Click to expand...

Some items follow:

"A programming language of my own creation": https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/CONSCIENCIA

[ii] "A deep residual neural network framework par HEART IRREGULARITY DETECTION": https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/EJECTION-FRACTION-IRREGULARITY-DETECTION-MODEL

[iii] "A.... n fold orthographic quasicrystal-structured neural network scan behaviour pattern routine": https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/MORPHING-SOMATIC-QUASICRYSTAL-NEURAL-NETWORK

[iv] "A scratch written (basic), regressive/progressive propagation therein gradient descent aligned model": https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/SYNTHETIC-SENTIENCE

[v] "An error-space complex optimal datum sequence inference mutation schematic": https://github.com/JordanMicahBenne...HOMEOMORPHIC-LATTICE-SPACE-BLOCH-OSCILLATIONS

[vi] "An operating system interface:"
https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/BRAIN-UNIVERSE-SYNONYMOUS-INTERFACE

[IMGw=999]http://i.imgur.com/3DOlL6J.png[/IMGw]
Figure above: OS interface


[vii] "A simplistic simulation in 'life' via John Conway rule set."
https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/AUTOMATANISM



FOOTNOTE:

Of the above random list, the last item is the least challenging to encode.

It intrigues, for it is a reminder that simplicity may yield complexity.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
How my 3 year old nephew explains it:

(1) The human brain is at least 10^15... in computational size. (as seen in the original post)........
Click to expand...

Maybe you could get your 3 year old nephew to carefully explain to you that if this is the figure for the lower bound of the human brain, then you shouldn't have used "10^16 to 10^18" in all your claims prior to this thread.

Maybe your three year old nephew could also explain to you that 10^18 is a thousand times higher a number than 10^15, and that therefore it is inconceivable that human brains vary between your upper and lower bounds. One or more of these figures is made up.

Your 3 year old relative might also help you understand that 10^15 is not "roughly" 10^16 as you claimed. The former is only 10% of the latter.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
How my 3 year old nephew explains it:
Click to expand...

Which does nothing to suggest that it's right.


ProgrammingGodJordan said:
(1) The human brain is at least 10^15... in computational size. (as seen in the original post)
Click to expand...

Except that you completely failed to demonstrate this. The rough number of synapses =/= computational size. It can be considered related, and likely could be used as part of an equation to reach such things, but your attempt to use it as is without so much as a hint of justification for why you think doing so is appropriate is a huge sign that you're not even trying to employ valid logic and are just trying to feed your confirmation bias. With that said, shamelessly repeating yourself while continually failing to address the counter arguments doesn't make for any better an argument than invoking the wisdom of a 3 year old.

ETA on this part: Incidentally, lying about how you actually said that
The human brain computes roughly 10^16 to 10^18 synaptic operations per second.
Click to expand...
in the original post rather than talking about it being at least 10^15 in computational size isn't a point in your favor.


ProgrammingGodJordan said:
(2) Using this lower bound, we can use formulae to obtain some minimum year 2020. (As mentioned in the original post)
Click to expand...

When your premises fail, don't expect your conclusion to be regarded as trustworthy.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
You may or may not learn something from my 3 year old nephew.
Click to expand...

Should I be impressed at all at the fact that your 3 year old can parrot you? I certainly don't have other reason to take your 3 year old seriously.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
(You may choose to proceed in pursuing that non issue, but I shan't any longer partake)
Click to expand...

You'd have much less of a hard time if you just admitted your error and the conversation just moved on from there. Even if your conclusion is correct for other reasons, when one invokes bad logic, one should be prepared to be called out on their bad logic. Simply running away in the face of being completely unable to defend your claim isn't really a good thing, regardless.
 
Last edited:
In the IBM article I only see references to "brain inspired" not "human brain inspired". Did I miss something?

As a former IBMer and IBM customer I would suggest that relying on a statement by an IBM employee stating that IBM will have a product by a given year is problematic.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
His statement: "Before the end of 2020 we will be able to produce a brain in a box".
Click to expand...

Assuming that this is an exact quote and that he's referring to the number of synapses, then you do understand that saying "a brain in a box" is not equivalent to saying "a human brain in a box", don't you? Mice, for example, have brains, and far fewer synapses than humans do.
 
MikeG said:
Maybe you could get your 3 year old nephew to carefully explain to you that if this is the figure for the lower bound of the human brain, then you shouldn't have used "10^16 to 10^18" in all your claims prior to this thread.

Maybe your three year old nephew could also explain to you that 10^18 is a thousand times higher a number than 10^15, and that therefore it is inconceivable that human brains vary between your upper and lower bounds. One or more of these figures is made up.

Your 3 year old relative might also help you understand that 10^15 is not "roughly" 10^16 as you claimed. The former is only 10% of the latter.
Click to expand...

More specifically, the 10^16 to 10^18 refers to something completely different than the 10^15. Saying that the 10^15 is roughly the 10^16 is utterly fallacious from the get go because they're entirely different things, before the orders of magnitude issue can even come into play.
 
Wudang said:
I had a quick look at item iii - which looks like a basic exercise in using Unity in 2D. Neuralnetwork has been stuck in a classname or name but that's it. 2 minutes I won't get back.
Click to expand...

Small correction: Unity 3D was used in item iii.

For typical neural network code, see some other items, like items ii, iv or v:


ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Some items follow:

"A programming language of my own creation": https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/CONSCIENCIA

[ii] "A deep residual neural network framework par HEART IRREGULARITY DETECTION": https://github.com/JordanMicahBennet...ETECTION-MODEL

[iii] "A.... n fold orthographic quasicrystal-structured neural network scan behaviour pattern routine": https://github.com/JordanMicahBennet...NEURAL-NETWORK

[iv] "A scratch written (basic), regressive/progressive propagation therein gradient descent aligned model": https://github.com/JordanMicahBennet...ETIC-SENTIENCE

[v] "An error-space complex optimal datum sequence inference mutation schematic": https://github.com/JordanMicahBennet...H-OSCILLATIONS

[vi] "An operating system interface:"
https://github.com/JordanMicahBennet...MOUS-INTERFACE
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Assuming that this is an exact quote and that he's referring to the number of synapses, then you do understand that saying "a brain in a box" is not equivalent to saying "a human brain in a box", don't you? Mice, for example, have brains, and far fewer synapses than humans do.
Click to expand...

They had already achieved 10^14...
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
More specifically, the 10^16 to 10^18 refers to something completely different than the 10^15. Saying that the 10^15 is roughly the 10^16 is utterly fallacious from the get go because they're entirely different things, before the orders of magnitude issue can even come into play.
Click to expand...

My 3 year old nephew understands that the range was

(1) not my conjuring.
(2) the precise range is pointed out in sources linked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom