Super Artificial Intelligence, a naive approach

[The Don]

(A)
I see that you are late as usual, in multiple ways.

The guy referenced work by neuroscientists:

Principles of Neural Science, by Eric R. Kandel and James H. Schwartz, 2nd edition, Elsevier, 1985.

And what did that 30 year-old source have to say on the subject ?

(B)
The source already said 10^15 when I got there.
It was I who edited it TODAY, to the correct approximation, 10^14.

That's as valid as me editing the account of the 1997 FA Cup final to make Middlesbrough FC 3-2 winners

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

And what did that 30 year-old source have to say on the subject ?




That's as valid as me editing the account of the 1997 FA Cup final to make Middlesbrough FC 3-2 winners

You may be blind sometimes, but try to see the following:

I edited wikipedia, today based on other wikipedia data:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons


Also, Wikipedia had already made reference to Koch (2004), which is entailed to express 10^14. I simply updated the 10^15 to reflect the initial reference. So, the IBM edit reference is valid.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I didn't need to believe any of the data.

I observed the data to be probably valid.

You're contradicting yourself.

And, speaking of contradicting yourself, if you're now claiming that the human brain has 10¹⁶ operations per second (10 impulses per second multiplied by 10¹⁵ synapses - or would that be 10 impulses per second multiplied by 10¹⁴ synapses?), why have you just posted this:

Separately, the human brain roughly performs <= 10^18 synaptic operations per second.

I actually read through the entire paper, but I related 10^14 with ibm's chip.

Yes, you skimmed it without paying attention to what it actually said. Why do you think this speaks in your favour?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

You're contradicting yourself.

And, speaking of contradicting yourself, if you're now claiming that the human brain has 10¹⁶ operations per second (10 impulses per second multiplied by 10¹⁵ synapses - or would that be 10 impulses per second multiplied by 10¹⁴ synapses?), why have you just posted this:


Yes, you skimmed it without paying attention to what it actually said. Why do you think this speaks in your favour?

I have not scrutinized other users here, despite the mountains of errors they have made.

(1)
See exascale computing on wikipedia for 10^18 estimation. (as provided in original post)


(2)
You may need to believe redundantly in science or other paradigms, but such is not necessary for others, like Neil deGrasse tyson, or myself.

Quote by Neil deGrasse Tyson:

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it"

Quote source video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRxx8pen6JY



(3)
I had long mentioned:

The 10^14 would actually disregard my initial calculation, as it would mean that IBM had already computed human level brain numbers. (although those synapses would still be crude)

See also, response #234, especially the implications section.

 

[Mojo]

I edited wikipedia, today based on other wikipedia data:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#User-generated_content

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#User-generated_content

Irrelevant.

WikiPedia data was used to update Wikipedia data, as is done daily.

I didn't take data from personal blog etc.

Also, Wikipedia had already made reference to Koch (2004), which is entailed to express 10^14. I simply updated the 10^15 to reflect the initial reference. So, the IBM edit reference is valid.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

If you're going to edit an article, please at least do it right.
You've put your 10¹⁴ number under the 10¹² header instead of making a new one.
Also, the source in the footnote says 10¹⁵.
You were too lazy to find another primary source that agrees with you, so you just lie about the actual source that's cited.
Stop this nonsense.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

If you're going to edit an article, please at least do it right.
You've put your 10¹⁴ number under the 10¹² header instead of making a new one.
Also, the source in the footnote says 10¹⁵.
You were too lazy to find another primary source that agrees with you, so you just lie about the actual source that's cited.
Stop this nonsense.

(A)
You should have read my comment at reply #234. (Especially the section "(B) SMALL WIKIPEDIA UPDATE BY ME")

10^14 would not belong to HEADER 10^15, as per requirements of that particular wikipedia page.

See short/long scale metric.




(B)

For example,

Look in the 10¹² section.

Do you notice that 10¹⁴ values, and 10¹³ value are UNDER 10¹² HEADING?

Do you not notice that there is no 10¹⁴ HEADER, and no 10¹³ HEADER?

The above is such, for the reason, as seen in the top of the wiki page, regarding SHORT/LONG SCALE metric.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

The article in footnote 18, which is given as a source states 10¹⁵
Find a source that supports your edit and cite it in the article.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

The article in footnote 18, which is given as a source states 10¹⁵
Find a source that supports your edit and cite it in the article.

I am looking now.
Where do you see 10^15 synapses in Koch's text?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

I am looking now.
Where do you see 10^15 synapses in Koch's text?

That's rich. When people ask you for sources you just say go look for them, I've already posted the link, and ignore polite requests for a direct reference.
But as soon as you need something, we're supposed to spoonfeed it to you.

It's on page 15.

 

[Wudang]

The coding of neural nets and new programming language(s) (like the language and neural nets I programmed, from reply 189) may be hard to some.

In the available repositories there are no neural nets.

I observe where highly intellectual beings tended to be intrigued by neural nets, from basic ones such as (item iv from reply 189) to slightly more complicated ones, such as (item ii from reply 189)

In the available repositories there are no neural nets.

I am curious. One of my repositories (the one from the original post) naively compounded supermanifolds & reinforcement learning, using clues from quantum computing basis. Since you find manifolds and deep learning 'trivial', where manifolds are observed to be potential ways to solve SEVERE ISSUES within deep learning, do you have any tips for me?

There are no examples of deep learning in any of your available repositories. The "manifold" link for some reason redirects from github to somewhere I have to register with google+ or facebook. I have no intention of so doing just to read more of your homework.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

That's rich. When people ask you for sources you just say go look for them, I've already posted the link, and ignore polite requests for a direct reference.
But as soon as you need something, we're supposed to spoonfeed it to you.

It's on page 15.

I am still looking, but from where I am, I can't access page 15.

Anyway, I can either revert, or refer to wiki-neuron-source-a and wiki-neuron-source-b

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

In the available repositories there are no neural nets.

In the available repositories there are no neural nets.


There are no examples of deep learning in any of your available repositories. The "manifold" link for some reason redirects from github to somewhere I have to register with google+ or facebook. I have no intention of so doing just to read more of your homework.

That's odd:

(1) basic neural net (technically a deep net of 3 layers as is, but can be extended):

https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/SYNTHETIC-SENTIENCE



(2) deep neural network for heart irregularity detection, using residual neural networks:

https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/EJECTION-FRACTION-IRREGULARITY-DETECTION-MODEL



(3) an experiment for enhancing deep neural net:

https://github.com/JordanMicahBenne...HOMEOMORPHIC-LATTICE-SPACE-BLOCH-OSCILLATIONS

etc

 

[Wudang]

Seriously?
public class NeuralNetworkTopology extends ArrayList <Integer>

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Seriously?
public class NeuralNetworkTopology extends ArrayList <Integer>

That class merely describes a simple topology of layers, that is, the number of neurons per layer. (I tend to avoid hard coding even simpler components, where possible)

To see the neural network operations, see NeuralNetwork.java, or Neuron.java.

You can also download and run the neural network (via class DisplayConsole.java , using BlueJ, and java 1.7 at minimum) to see that it classifies successfully as described in the README.md.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

That's rich. When people ask you for sources you just say go look for them, I've already posted the link, and ignore polite requests for a direct reference.
But as soon as you need something, we're supposed to spoonfeed it to you.

It's on page 15.

I don't see the 10^15 value on page 15. Can you link me to page 15 of your copy?

 

[The Don]

I don't see the 10^15 value on page 15. Can you link me to page 15 of your copy?
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/omF718j.png[/qimg]

That's not the link Porpoise of Life provided

You're on page 12, page 15 has the figure

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

That's not the link Porpoise of Life provided

You're on page 12, page 15 has the figure

I already mentioned that I could not access page 15 using Porpoise of Life's link.

As seen in the screen shot provided (top right), that is page 15, not 12, from my copy.

Furthermore, advancing 3 pages on my copy, still does not yield any thing.



See the screenshot below, (uses Porpoise of Life's link);

Page 15 is not accessible, to me.

 

[Wudang]

That class merely describes a simple topology of layers, that is, the number of neurons per layer. (I tend to avoid hard coding even simpler components, where possible)

To see the neural network operations, see NeuralNetwork.java, or Neuron.java.

You can also download and run the neural network (via class DisplayConsole.java , using BlueJ, and java 1.7 at minimum) to see that it classifies successfully as described in the README.md.

Apologies. A quick look shows that is indeed a standard neural network