5 ms·
I think you are assuming that the "cloud brains" will just be number crunchers like today's computers. Human intelligence and computer intelligence are fundamen
by dexwiz 10y ago
I think you are assuming that the "cloud brains" will just be number crunchers like today's computers. Human intelligence and computer intelligence are fundamentally different. Sure, plugging directly into a massive calculator is useful, but does have it limits. However, this article is more about running simulated copies of our neural patterns. The human brain is limited to only a handful of simultaneous ideas. Imagine if you could synthesis an idea with 100 inputs instead of just 5. Or if you go with the spontaneous theory of creativity, you can parallelize the creative process, and just have a higher chance of having a good idea by increasing the number of ideas had. This is fundamentally different from raw calculation. Both are likely to be useful, but both will serve different purposes.
- PaulHoule 10y agoI think the outcome for that is even more pessimistic. If you generate 100x more ideas most of them are going to be rehashings of the same old ideas, not that much better than what you had before. You probably get some more value, but not 100x. Whether value goes up logarithmically or reaches an asymtope, the benefits of throwing more neurons on it will become uneconomic. Also I think creativity is overvalued. Look at all the things Buckminister Fuller invented that went nowhere: https://bfi.org/about-fuller/big-ideas/dymaxion-world/dymaxion-bathroom https://bfi.org/about-fuller/big-ideas/dymaxion-world/dymaxi...