• 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:
If you think that slurring your interlocutors in this conversation is a good way forward then you will soon fall foul of the rules. We aren't "beings", and I am not slow. It was you who wrote "10^15 is roughly 10^16". We've had long conversations about it.............have you forgotten already?
Click to expand...


Show us one instance (if possible) of the thing of which you are accusing me.

I wasn't calling you slow, I expressed that persons' writings tended to contain a lack of understanding, as their writings seem to be slow to contain information as I had posted throughout this thread.

Edit: I shall slumber now. Proceed to attempt to discover evidence as you accuse me.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
.......
I wasn't calling you slow, I expressed that persons' writings tended to contain a lack of understanding, as their writings seem to be slow to contain information as I had posted throughout this thread.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah. You think we were born yesterday?
 
MikeG said:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Show us one instance (if possible) of the thing of which you are accusing me.......
Click to expand...


OK. That was easy:

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
10^15 is listed in the source of the original post
Roughly 10^16 was mentioned............
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Yes, the above event was an easily foolish writing of yours. (As predicted)

At value 10^15 synapses (original post Wikipedia source koch value) we have 10 impulses per second, to yield 10^16 synaptic operations per second.

So 10^15 synapses, is roughly 10^16 synaptic ops per second.



PS:
There is a distinction between the units. Recall that 10^16 synaptic ops per sec were mentioned in original post, and 10^15 synapses was also in the source Wikipedia linked on original post.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Yes, that was easily foolish writing of yours.

At value 10^15 synapses (original post Wikipedia soucr koch value) we have 10 impulses per second, to yield 10^16 synaptic operations per second.

So 10^15 synapses, is roughly 10^16 synaptic ops per second.
Click to expand...

No PGJ. Go back to the original. You'll find you were pages away from playing that particular gambit at the stage of the above post.

Stop with the sophistry. Do you think we haven't seen sophistry here for ever? You're argument has gone from silly to ludicrous, you can't back up your claims, and you adjust Wiki to try to score internet points in this thread........so what is your response? Sophistry. Wriggle around trying not to get caught slurring us, but all you are doing is highlighting the paucity of content in your OP and follow-up claims. You've got nothing, so you abuse us.
 
MikeG said:
No PGJ. Go back to the original. You'll find you were pages away from playing that particular gambit at the stage of the above post.

Stop with the sophistry. Do you think we haven't seen sophistry here for ever? You're argument has gone from silly to ludicrous, you can't back up your claims, and you adjust Wiki to try to score internet points in this thread........so what is your response? Sophistry. Wriggle around trying not to get caught slurring us, but all you are doing is highlighting the paucity of content in your OP and follow-up claims. You've got nothing, so you abuse us.
Click to expand...

Your writings grossly miss the point. (As usual)

(1)
If you look at the relevant original post wiki url, 10^15 synapses was a part of the original post wiki link, that referred to koch.

(2)
If you look at the original post text, I mentioned 10^16 synaptic operations per second.

Recall that I have not edited the original post, that contains all the references made above.


See the above however you choose.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
No.

Read carefully.
I expressed that ibm achieved 10^14, and they did just that.

IBM: "We have simulated an unprecedented 2.084 neurosynaptic cores containing 53 x 1010 neurons, and 1.37 x 1014 synapses."

http://www.modha.org/blog/SC12/RJ10...685714895492773&cm_mc_sid_50200000=1489540048

Your writings show blindness in more ways that one.
Click to expand...


More spam of the same link. Repetition does not create truth.
Click to expand...

To clarify, what do you suppose that I distorted in the above sequence you quoted?
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
It is optimal that you researched on IBM's latest efficient chips. This relates with the video I posted 5 pages ago.
Click to expand...

Do you work for IBM, PGJ? Why are you so interested in their stuff, yet, for instance, ignored the stuff about the more advanced Chinese computers a few pages back?
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
I don't ask anyone to do anything.

I still observe my prior reply in post #307.

Its time to focus on the paper in the original post.

If you lack the mental awareness/experience to deal with the paper, move on to another thread, otherwise do criticize the above paper, as technically as possible.
Click to expand...

I love how the first sentence of this post is you claiming that you don't ask anybody to ignore the fact that you based your conclusions on evidence gathered from a paper which you admit that you didn't read properly, and the next three sentences are you asking people to ignore the fact that you based your conclusions on evidence gathered from a paper that you didn't read properly.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Criticism is welcome/needed.
Click to expand...
(i) Irrelevant opinion.
(ii) Argument by YouTube video is usually invalid
(iii) Brain speed is not "optimization".
(iv) Computer speed is not artificial intelligence.
(v) A badly (madly?) titled PDF on the internet is dubious, especially on a site that you have to register to download the PDF. "Causal Neural Paradox (Thought Curvature): Aptly, the transient, naive hypothesis" is nonsense.

The idea seems to be that increases in computer speed (e.g. quantum computing) will magically lead to something called "super artificial intelligence". Aided by an IBM chip?
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Sources will vary human brain speed from roughly 10^16 to 10^18 synaptic operations per second.
Click to expand...
It is standard in science and common in real life that a calculation on a range of values does not use the extremes or values outside of that range. The reasonable value to use is a value in the middle of the range. That is usually the average or median value.

You gave no source for "roughly 10^16 to 10^18 synaptic operations per second" so a reasonable value would be 10^17 synaptic operations per second.
10^14 computer operations a second gets to the lower limit of the range that you gave in a little over 8 years (doubling every 2 years), i.e. at least 2025.

Moore's law may be running up against physical and economic constraints - some experts think that the rate of increase is decreasing.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
At value 10^15 synapses (original post Wikipedia source koch value) we have 10 impulses per second, to yield 10^16 synaptic operations per second.
Click to expand...
A small nitpick: That should be 10^16 synaptic impulses per second .
Using the correct units of measurement is important in science, e.g. 10 meters per second * 10^16 seconds has to give meters, not feet.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
...http://www.modha.org/blog/SC12/RJ10...685714895492773&cm_mc_sid_50200000=1489540048
Click to expand...
You slightly mangled and cut out the context of that quote from the PDF.
Since the final submission of our work on the Compass scalable simulator for the IBM True North Cognitive Computing architecture [1], we have simulated an unprecedented 2.084 neurosynaptic cores containing 53 x 1010 neurons, and 1.37 x 1014 synapses, running at only 1542x slower than real time.
Click to expand...
There is no "We...synapses." sentence.
This is a simulation on an IBM Sequoia (also see IBM Blue Gene/Q) supercomputer, not a chip. It cannot be compared to a chip because it is massively parallel (98,304 compute nodes).

The OP links to a 2014 IBM SyNAPSE chip with "only" 256 million synapses.
More current research from IBM has been cited: Breaking News: Supercomputing 2016 Paper -- TrueNorth Ecosystem for Brain-Inspired Computing
Finally NS16e, the scale-up system, has a tightly connected 16-chip TrueNorth array. It can run a neural network using up to 16 million neurons and 4 billion synapses. This system can run image recognition tasks (CIFAR 10, CIFAR 100) with near state-of-the-art accuracy at over 1000 frames per second.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
A small nitpick: That should be 10^16 synaptic impulses per second .
Using the correct units of measurement is important in science, e.g. 10 meters per second * 10^16 seconds has to give meters, not feet.
Click to expand...

Worthless comment.

"10 impulses per second" is derived from the works of neuroscientists.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom