5 ms·

I think, what most people here are missing in the discussion, is that Elon Musk mainly points out there is a mismatch in INPUT vs OUTPUT bandwidth between a com

by TeeWEE 10y ago

I think, what most people here are missing in the discussion, is that Elon Musk mainly points out there is a mismatch in INPUT vs OUTPUT bandwidth between a computer and a human. We only communicate to computer via toch, button clicks, keyboard and mouse. The bandwidth is low here. However we can already "read" from a computer using vision which is a high bandwidth connection. If you think about it, from first principles (like Elon Musk often advocates), this gap can probably be solved by a better interface with computers. Thing about a Brain-Computer cable. Or we could computers learn to recognize human voice, human facial expression etc. That would increase the bandwidth. However it would be a lot cooler to send our "thinking" to a computer. This would allows us to program faster, too lookup wikipedia articles faster etc. Thats the merger he is pointing to. I think its a valid point.

gnoim 10y ago
I think you and Elon are missing the point as to how a computational system works.. There will always be a mismatch between input and output bandwidth. If output matched input, you effectively have a pass-through system. If output exceeds input.. yeah, explain to me how that works in any place in our universe.. Structuring information isn't 'free'. It takes time. It takes lots of information. What comes out the other end is less information via (a relatively small number of intelligent actions). Try taking your hand off the keyboard and mouse and speaking 'internally' without activating output. Now, try speaking 'really.. really' fast about a thought. You can't can you? There's a fundamental reason why you can't. There are also fundamental truths that will restrict what can be interfaced. This fundamental reason is understood by those who actually have a grasp of the human brain as a system. It is not grasped by those who make uninformed comments about input/output bandwidth. NLP tech exists. You can draw pictures (picture speaks 1000 words). Human facial expression processing software exists. We don't exploit half the capabilities of what we have today in realized technology. Yet people won't to go further down the rabbit hole without a flashlight... 'Sending thinking to a computer' sounds cool .. I recall an anime named 'Ghost in the shell' that did a way better job at exampling it. The manga was serialized in 1989. Where the rubber meets the road in reality is where engineering and science take over.. Engineering nor information theory are with this proposal. I think this is what most people are missing on this hype train.
- skoocda 10y ago
  'cute dog videos 10 hours HD' is a 216 bit UTF-8 string input. Youtube's video result is a 288 000 000 000 bit HD video output. So for the (server - disregarding the client) computer, output exceeds input. For the human, input exceeds output. Vice versa, there is a physical output > input effect for the human brain- sensory deprivation. Lack of input seems to fairly reliably cause psychosis and schizophrenic effects.
- TeeWEE 10y ago
  True. But that doesnt mean we can improve the bandwidth. Currently the way we interact with a computer is very constraint. We should at least increase our input 4x fold.

by TeeWEE 10y ago

gnoim 10y ago

I think you and Elon are missing the point as to how a computational system works.. There will always be a mismatch between input and output bandwidth. If output matched input, you effectively have a pass-through system. If output exceeds input.. yeah, explain to me how that works in any place in our universe.. Structuring information isn't 'free'. It takes time. It takes lots of information. What comes out the other end is less information via (a relatively small number of intelligent actions). Try taking your hand off the keyboard and mouse and speaking 'internally' without activating output. Now, try speaking 'really.. really' fast about a thought. You can't can you? There's a fundamental reason why you can't. There are also fundamental truths that will restrict what can be interfaced. This fundamental reason is understood by those who actually have a grasp of the human brain as a system. It is not grasped by those who make uninformed comments about input/output bandwidth. NLP tech exists. You can draw pictures (picture speaks 1000 words). Human facial expression processing software exists. We don't exploit half the capabilities of what we have today in realized technology. Yet people won't to go further down the rabbit hole without a flashlight... 'Sending thinking to a computer' sounds cool .. I recall an anime named 'Ghost in the shell' that did a way better job at exampling it. The manga was serialized in 1989. Where the rubber meets the road in reality is where engineering and science take over.. Engineering nor information theory are with this proposal. I think this is what most people are missing on this hype train.

skoocda 10y ago
'cute dog videos 10 hours HD' is a 216 bit UTF-8 string input. Youtube's video result is a 288 000 000 000 bit HD video output. So for the (server - disregarding the client) computer, output exceeds input. For the human, input exceeds output. Vice versa, there is a physical output > input effect for the human brain- sensory deprivation. Lack of input seems to fairly reliably cause psychosis and schizophrenic effects.
TeeWEE 10y ago
True. But that doesnt mean we can improve the bandwidth. Currently the way we interact with a computer is very constraint. We should at least increase our input 4x fold.