3 ms·
> next tier will be much more a matter of paradigm shift than of growth on a line. There are a limited number of paradigm shifts before AIs get "general" in th
by red75prime 8y ago
> next tier will be much more a matter of paradigm shift than of growth on a line.
There are a limited number of paradigm shifts before AIs get "general" in their name. So "it already happened before" argument has a natural end. What makes you think it is still applicable?
Some organizations have access to a computational power reaching into the realm of a computational power of a human brain. We see commercial applications of systems which aren't programmed by hand like expert systems and which don't fail miserably like speech recognition engines of yore. How often do you hear about the curse of dimensionality today?
Some things have changed from then to now, the question is are they changed enough.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago> Some organizations have access to a computational power reaching into the realm of a computational power of a human brain From a physics standpoint it’s not equivalent power actually, it’s equivalent energy. Power is work per unit time. Work is energy expended which causes displacement. These “brain-equivalent” computers can’t do nearly the work of a human brain in the amount of time. They use about the same amount of raw computational energy, but they don’t make nearly the same amount of structures waves in the information spaces around them. Their output can only even be seen in the absolute quietest of environments. They often run for long periods of time with no obviously informative output. Human minds tuned for it are essentially incapable of not producing a constant stream of novel and disruptive insights (work) which is how you get a large computational power given a roughly constant computational energy.