• 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

Aridas said:
Sure. More specifically, it's fairly likely that the brain isn't perfectly efficient. It even may well be possible that present day computers, with sufficiently good code running, could outperform a human brain in pretty much every way that matters. With that said, though, you haven't backed up 10^15 or 10^16 validly. Nor did you actually address the point I had just made, which was that you seem to fairly certainly be engaging in a convenient misinterpretation of what Modha was saying and trying to twist it to seem like it supports the the points of yours that are actually in dispute, rather than points that aren't so much in dispute.

When it comes to the 10^18 number by 2020, regardless, I'm a little more surprised that you haven't been pointing towards China's project mentioned on the exascale wiki page which is apparently planned to be finished by 2020. That, at least, would be something something more solid for you to point towards, after all, rather than trying to grasp at straws like you've been doing.



Which still begs the questions of which measurements are being employed and why you are even bringing up consciousness.



It seemed much more like brain inspired computing had a heck of a lot more to do with "how" the system works, given that it seems to be modeled on how brains work, rather than actually saying much about the raw power. Raw power might be potentially be reachable with such a model, but is, at best, a secondary concern there for why it's brain inspired computing.
Click to expand...

Correction: +probably Japan

PS:
Raw power is not a "secondary concern".Raw power is core to the success of deep artificial neural nets today.


PS (ii):
I expressed nothing about the brain being "perfectly efficient".

Anyway, artificial neural nets already exceed humans in many individual cognitive tasks. (as mentioned in the original post)
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
Little? It was best part of 30mm long I reckon. That was a big ball of elephant dung it was pushing along. Oddly apt.
Click to expand...

I was obliquely referencing the aim of the little beastie, and yes, quite apt.

abaddon said:
:D

How odd that PGJ resorts to avatar criticism when stumped.
Click to expand...

That might have been me, but it wasn't a criticism of the avatar.
 
MikeG said:
Fair comment. I'll try harder.

However, I warrant you haven't been dealing with this crap for the last couple of weeks. It does try one's patience eventually.
Click to expand...

I dealt with him a bit in at least one of his other threads and have dealt with... a number of other posters, like say, Navigator, who were just as bad or worse for extended periods of time. Admittedly, what tries my patience tends to be more along the lines of employing thoroughly fallacious lines of argument, especially after it's been clearly demonstrated that they're fallacious, repeatedly, and continually making up positions for me that cannot be validly reached from what I actually said, and there's really no need to point at anything else when pointing out why I hold such a low opinion when it come to that.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
The original post pointed to sources, containing the precise values used.
Sources will vary human brain speed from roughly 10^16 to 10^18 synaptic operations per second.

This is why I used the word roughly in the original post.

So, at minimum, we have roughly 10^15, which yields alt least 3 years, which outputd 2020 at least.
Click to expand...

So, at minimum, we have roughly 10^15, which yields alt least 3 years, which outputd 2020 at least. (quoting above so we all know what sentence is being noted). Outputd 2020 what? This is the kind of meaningless phrase/sentence part we are talking about. So, so often!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Correction: +probably Japan
Click to expand...

Hmm? From the wiki -

China

China currently has the fastest two supercomputers in the world. China's first exascale supercomputer will enter service by 2020 according to the head of the school of computing at the National University of Defense Technology (NUDT). According to the national plan for the next generation of high performance computers, China will develop an exascale computer during the 13th Five-Year-Plan period (2016-2020). The government of Tianjin Binhai New Area, NUDT and the National Supercomputing Center in Tianjin are working on the project. The exascale supercomputer is planned to be named Tianhe-3.[3]
Click to expand...

That sure seems to fit what I said. If you're going to add more, why not tack on all the other countries named, though, rather than just Japan?


ProgrammingGodJordan said:
PS:
Raw power is not a "secondary concern".Raw power is core to the success of deep artificial neural nets today.
Click to expand...

When it comes to why it is being called brain inspired computing, it's definitely a secondary concern. The raw power is certainly a concern for many things, but not really with regards to the naming.


ProgrammingGodJordan said:
PS (ii):
I expressed nothing about the brain being "perfectly efficient".
Click to expand...

Did I say you did?

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Anyway, artificial neural nets already exceed humans in many individual cognitive tasks. (as mentioned in the original post)
Click to expand...

Sure. I was speaking notably more comprehensively, though.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
Hmm? From the wiki -



That sure seems to fit what I said. If you're going to add more, why not tack on all the other countries named, though, rather than just Japan?




When it comes to why it is being called brain inspired computing, it's definitely a secondary concern. The raw power is certainly a concern for many things, but not really with regards to the naming.




Did I say you did?



Sure. I was speaking notably more comprehensively, though.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that it was I that provided that link.
 
fuelair said:
So, at minimum, we have roughly 10^15, which yields alt least 3 years, which outputd 2020 at least. (quoting above so we all know what sentence is being noted). Outputd 2020 what? This is the kind of meaningless phrase/sentence part we are talking about. So, so often!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Present more examples...
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
I asked my 3 year old nephew to correct that typo.

He wrote 'outputted'.

You may or may not learn from him.
Click to expand...

You are responsible for what goes out under your name on the forum. It is also against the rules to use someone else's account, as you have just said your nephew did. Mind you, the chances are your nephew might have written a more meaningful OP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom