3 ms·

My 100% unfounded, total wild guess is that a computer with 1 billion times the processing ability of current supercomputers could replicate the functionality o

My 100% unfounded, total wild guess is that a computer with 1 billion times the processing ability of current supercomputers could replicate the functionality of a biological honey bee brain. From what I can tell though, I agree that there are alot of very subtle, but fundamental mistakes and omissions in both the design and combinations of current generation intelligence algorithms that are impeding a viable path toward general intelligence. Of course, if all we care about is dramatically increasing the efficiency of solving problems humans care about, this totally isn't a problem, because we apparently don't need general intelligence to do that.

bachbach 8y ago
I thought I'd scribble on the back of the envelope. Henry Markram, a neuroscience person with a desire to emulate the human brain believes it takes 1 exaflop. It's a start. Existing supercomputers reach 50 petaflops. 50 billion petaflops is 50 million exaflops. Is this 50 million brain EM moments? It's possible it was in the ballpark of a human brain emulation although I strongly suspect a fair comparison isn't easily comprehensible. > I agree that there are alot of very subtle, but fundamental mistakes and omissions in both the design and combinations of current generation intelligence algorithms that are impeding a viable path toward general intelligence I think that is true of specialized intelligence, and that zero progress of any sort has been made on AGI. I don't mind being wrong if you know of primitive examples that qualify. It is unclear how to begin. Maybe rehearsing something like real biological evolution. > , if all we care about is dramatically increasing the efficiency of solving problems humans care about, this totally isn't a problem, because we apparently don't need general intelligence to do that. Daniel Dennett makes this point philosophically in a video I watched yesterday. Other people have made the observation that we're already surrounded by AGIs in the form human society based collective intelligences we know well.

bachbach 8y ago

I thought I'd scribble on the back of the envelope. Henry Markram, a neuroscience person with a desire to emulate the human brain believes it takes 1 exaflop. It's a start. Existing supercomputers reach 50 petaflops. 50 billion petaflops is 50 million exaflops. Is this 50 million brain EM moments? It's possible it was in the ballpark of a human brain emulation although I strongly suspect a fair comparison isn't easily comprehensible. > I agree that there are alot of very subtle, but fundamental mistakes and omissions in both the design and combinations of current generation intelligence algorithms that are impeding a viable path toward general intelligence I think that is true of specialized intelligence, and that zero progress of any sort has been made on AGI. I don't mind being wrong if you know of primitive examples that qualify. It is unclear how to begin. Maybe rehearsing something like real biological evolution. > , if all we care about is dramatically increasing the efficiency of solving problems humans care about, this totally isn't a problem, because we apparently don't need general intelligence to do that. Daniel Dennett makes this point philosophically in a video I watched yesterday. Other people have made the observation that we're already surrounded by AGIs in the form human society based collective intelligences we know well.