4 ms·
You're assuming that human brains and bodies are grossly inefficient. I would argue that while humans are bad at some tasks, the brain is a fairly efficient _l
by CuriouslyC 10y ago
You're assuming that human brains and bodies are grossly inefficient. I would argue that while humans are bad at some tasks, the brain is a fairly efficient _low-order_ general probabalistic computer, and the body is a fairly efficient as a highly general object manipulation system. I doubt for highly varied, extremely low value tasks that robots backed by AI will be significantly cheaper than humans for a long time, if ever. We're too close to the end of Moore's law, and energy efficiency is such a survival advantage that life has almost certainly optimized this variable fairly well.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- albi_lander 10y agoDon't forget that natural evolution is a very slow and inefficient process, essentially driven by randomness, and that there is no such "optimization" that you describe, only selection. Moore's law may come to an end, but we have many great things coming such as quantum computing or nuclear fusion.
- CuriouslyC 10y agoThe natural selection process, when paired with random variation, is a functional optimization algorithm for things that impact survival. Energy efficiency very directly impacts survival. Ergo, life has "optimized" energy efficiency to some degree. With regards to quantum computing and nuclear fusion, I prefer not to count my chickens before they've hatched. We may get both (and more!) or we may find that they are only functional under specific contexts that limit their utility.