4 ms·

The article goes on to explain just how wasteful our computers are, compared to the computations that go on in cells (which is a staggeringly large amount of co

by cvoss 8y ago

The article goes on to explain just how wasteful our computers are, compared to the computations that go on in cells (which is a staggeringly large amount of computation, given their speed and abundance). > But the thermodynamic efficiency of this computation—the amount of energy required by a ribosome per elementary operation—is many orders of magnitude superior to the thermodynamic efficiency of our current artificial computers. So I think the headline is justifiable in light of this comparison.

lucideer 8y ago
Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware of how inefficient computers actually are compared to cells. But I just don't really see the relevance of the comparison. Computers are so much more efficient that so many things in our world that we could much more easily improve the efficiency of: it would be great to make artificial computers as efficient as our brains but sinking resources into the effort rather than addressing much more pressing low-hanging fruit isn't really logically sound. Of course it's not a zero-sum game: we can sink resources into both, but the alarmist headline is still hyperbole for this reason.
- visarga 8y ago
  The comparison is misguided, I agree. Those teeny 20 watts the brain is using are extracted by killing plants and animals. How about measuring the amount of death per computation? Also, let's not forget about the enormous time, space and energy used by evolution to make humans. Nothing we invented can rival that kind of resource usage. Even in Deep Learning, performant models require more data and compute. You can't obtain the same accuracy from running a computer for a day compared to 500 TPUs for a week. Humans have had lots of time to train and evolve, computers not.
  - justtopost 8y ago
    What about bacteria? Unfortunately weighing the value of life is hard. As cute as kittens, and spiders, daffidls and protozoa are, we aren't equal. And evolution did not 'make humans', and we are not the intended product of the big bang. Seems the ultimate hubris to bill the total energy expended by the universe so far to the creation of us forum posting meatbags.
    - visarga 8y ago
      There would be no forum posting meatbags if not for evolution and its enormous resource usage. While I agree that nature did not 'intend' to make humans from the beginning, we, as humans, can't just write it off. Those bacteria are an important step in our cellular apparatus, and people are comparing computers to brains (brain cells at work), here. And as long as we can't get our energy without killing other living organisms, the energy brain uses can't be compared to the energy computers use. It's physically the same, but morally not. Of course you could say computers are here because humans have killed living organisms to feed themselves, so computers partake into that, but we'd end in a loop and never reach any conclusion.
      - usrusr 8y ago
        > And as long as we can't get our energy without killing other living organisms It is perfectly possible to fuel a human only from biological sources that have died a natural death. It's exactly the same as running a computer on fossil fuels, just without the millennia of waiting for sufficient accumulation that you need for building a whole industrial base in one short flash in the pan moment (compared to the millennia of accumulation). Actually, you don't even have to wait for organisms to die, you can even use fuels where the providing organisms live on, having just shed off a part they don't need anymore. No killing involved in eating an apple. And if you plant the seeds in an advantageous environment you are even taking an active role in their procreation, as the seeds that just drop into the shade of the parent tree won't thrive there.
- ghostly_s 8y ago
  I don't see how you're reading this headline as "alarmist". It's a valid question worth exploring.

by cvoss 8y ago

lucideer 8y ago

Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware of how inefficient computers actually are compared to cells. But I just don't really see the relevance of the comparison. Computers are so much more efficient that so many things in our world that we could much more easily improve the efficiency of: it would be great to make artificial computers as efficient as our brains but sinking resources into the effort rather than addressing much more pressing low-hanging fruit isn't really logically sound. Of course it's not a zero-sum game: we can sink resources into both, but the alarmist headline is still hyperbole for this reason.

visarga 8y ago
The comparison is misguided, I agree. Those teeny 20 watts the brain is using are extracted by killing plants and animals. How about measuring the amount of death per computation? Also, let's not forget about the enormous time, space and energy used by evolution to make humans. Nothing we invented can rival that kind of resource usage. Even in Deep Learning, performant models require more data and compute. You can't obtain the same accuracy from running a computer for a day compared to 500 TPUs for a week. Humans have had lots of time to train and evolve, computers not.
- justtopost 8y ago
  What about bacteria? Unfortunately weighing the value of life is hard. As cute as kittens, and spiders, daffidls and protozoa are, we aren't equal. And evolution did not 'make humans', and we are not the intended product of the big bang. Seems the ultimate hubris to bill the total energy expended by the universe so far to the creation of us forum posting meatbags.
  - visarga 8y ago
    There would be no forum posting meatbags if not for evolution and its enormous resource usage. While I agree that nature did not 'intend' to make humans from the beginning, we, as humans, can't just write it off. Those bacteria are an important step in our cellular apparatus, and people are comparing computers to brains (brain cells at work), here. And as long as we can't get our energy without killing other living organisms, the energy brain uses can't be compared to the energy computers use. It's physically the same, but morally not. Of course you could say computers are here because humans have killed living organisms to feed themselves, so computers partake into that, but we'd end in a loop and never reach any conclusion.
    - usrusr 8y ago
      > And as long as we can't get our energy without killing other living organisms It is perfectly possible to fuel a human only from biological sources that have died a natural death. It's exactly the same as running a computer on fossil fuels, just without the millennia of waiting for sufficient accumulation that you need for building a whole industrial base in one short flash in the pan moment (compared to the millennia of accumulation). Actually, you don't even have to wait for organisms to die, you can even use fuels where the providing organisms live on, having just shed off a part they don't need anymore. No killing involved in eating an apple. And if you plant the seeds in an advantageous environment you are even taking an active role in their procreation, as the seeds that just drop into the shade of the parent tree won't thrive there.
ghostly_s 8y ago
I don't see how you're reading this headline as "alarmist". It's a valid question worth exploring.