3 ms·

Awesome (in the archaic sense) that the size estimate is only 200x what Google has currently. Seems trivially within reach in, what, only 8 doublings of perform

Awesome (in the archaic sense) that the size estimate is only 200x what Google has currently. Seems trivially within reach in, what, only 8 doublings of performance? They guess at 10 years for "one machine", so what, 15-20 years before it's pda size/priced? An extra full-real-thinking-feeling-creating-art-type-brain in my laptop?! Holy shit. I was actually just wondering why this project wasn't happening yet while reading "The Singularity is Near". If you haven't read it, I recommend it. It's hella dry and boring in parts, but overall worth reading if only to make you think about what a startup might look like in only 5 or 10 years.

xirium 19y ago
The central argument from the book The Singularity Is Near by Ray Kurzweil is on his website ( http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1 http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1 ). It was almost completely ignored when it was posted to this forum a few days ago ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=126183 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=126183 ).
- marvin 19y ago
  I think the reason most people are ignoring Kurzweil is that he sounds like a crackpot. I happen to be a guy who owns an autographed copy of Kurzweil's latest book, but I acknowledge that the idea of the technological singularity sounds too good to be true. There have been thousands of cults proclaiming that the end is near; it would be a coincidence of historical proportions if this one happened to be right. Kurzweil presents many convincing arguments, but the central tenet is that the doubling of processing power keeps up for another two decades. Due to the nature of nature, what we observe as exponential growth in the end invariably turns out to be logistic growth. If this is so, then at any time the doubling of processing power could slow, and this would mean that we would only, at the most, get one more doubling. Such an event would bring the dream of a near-term universe full of computers to a screeching halt. I believe that we should be able to create machines that think, but it is important that we aren't blinded by ideology. A massive "singularity movement" that ends up disappointing people, will in the best case delay the advent of such technology due to funding issues. I think the history of AI has demonstrated this quite clearly. If Kurzweil's estimates are correct, though, another 8-10 years of "exponential growth" in computer hardware will put full-scale simulation of a human brain into supercomputer territory. And frankly, I doubt that evolution has managed to find the most computationally efficient way to achieve intelligence. There's got to be a way to do this.
  - anewaccountname 19y ago
    The reason "chips" are called "chips" is because they are essentially 2d, as soon as we bump up to 3d (though it will probably be more like a high surface area crumpled up shape (not unlike the brain) for cooling reasons), I expect at least a few more doublings.

xirium 19y ago

The central argument from the book The Singularity Is Near by Ray Kurzweil is on his website ( http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1 http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1 ). It was almost completely ignored when it was posted to this forum a few days ago ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=126183 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=126183 ).

marvin 19y ago
I think the reason most people are ignoring Kurzweil is that he sounds like a crackpot. I happen to be a guy who owns an autographed copy of Kurzweil's latest book, but I acknowledge that the idea of the technological singularity sounds too good to be true. There have been thousands of cults proclaiming that the end is near; it would be a coincidence of historical proportions if this one happened to be right. Kurzweil presents many convincing arguments, but the central tenet is that the doubling of processing power keeps up for another two decades. Due to the nature of nature, what we observe as exponential growth in the end invariably turns out to be logistic growth. If this is so, then at any time the doubling of processing power could slow, and this would mean that we would only, at the most, get one more doubling. Such an event would bring the dream of a near-term universe full of computers to a screeching halt. I believe that we should be able to create machines that think, but it is important that we aren't blinded by ideology. A massive "singularity movement" that ends up disappointing people, will in the best case delay the advent of such technology due to funding issues. I think the history of AI has demonstrated this quite clearly. If Kurzweil's estimates are correct, though, another 8-10 years of "exponential growth" in computer hardware will put full-scale simulation of a human brain into supercomputer territory. And frankly, I doubt that evolution has managed to find the most computationally efficient way to achieve intelligence. There's got to be a way to do this.
- anewaccountname 19y ago
  The reason "chips" are called "chips" is because they are essentially 2d, as soon as we bump up to 3d (though it will probably be more like a high surface area crumpled up shape (not unlike the brain) for cooling reasons), I expect at least a few more doublings.