4 ms·
Exactly this. Conscious information processing constitutes only a tiny part of the processing within the brain. Real computational power of the brain is in the
by trashtester 8y ago
Exactly this. Conscious information processing constitutes only a tiny part of the processing within the brain. Real computational power of the brain is in the order of petaflops to exaflops 1).
On the other hand, AZ used a lot more than 1E18 calculations of training to beat human level play, so that part is also wrong. In fact, the total processing power of the 5000 TPU's used are in the order of 1E17 operations per second.
Still, since 1E17 flops is comparable (within 1-2 orders of magnitude) to the human brain's raw capacity, and AZ could reach superhuman level in GO in less than 10 hours, that means that AZ can be seen as more efficient than human brains at GO (in terms of learning rate/calculation, not necessarily per watt)
This should also not be surprising. After all, GO (like chess) is a very abstract game, far removed from the tasks that the biological brain has evolved to do well.
For tasks that the brain does well, such as pattern recognition in the environment that humans live, the human brain is still much more efficient. A human can learn to drive a car in 10's of hours, while AI's still require millions of hours of training, and they still end up inferior.
So, in the end, the title is correct (and also common knowledge for anyone following this development), even if almost all of the content in the article is way off.
Was this a high school essay?
1) http://hplusmagazine.com/2009/04/07/brain-chip/ http://hplusmagazine.com/2009/04/07/brain-chip/
- IanCal 8y ago> A human can learn to drive a car in 10's of hours, while AI's still require millions of hours of training, and they still end up inferior. I think it's a bit unrealistic to compare these numbers. A human learning to drive has usually started with 16-18 years of learning how the world works before the 10 hours of transfer learning.
- ben_w 8y ago1 million hours ~= 114 years. At best, humans are still a factor of 10 better in terms of necessary training examples.
- joncrocks 8y agoThe brain does however have the advantage of evolution optimising the hardware for specific tasks. That's been going on for a while.
- ben_w 8y agoAgreed. I think the next two steps in this thread would be: * Driving isn’t natural, it is movement which involves mostly fine motor skills combined with situational awareness of unnaturally shaped objects, which are 20 times out mass, moving 5 times as fast as we normally do, in an unnatural environment (roads, traffic, street furniture) * Yes, but (1) evolution still helped us get the basics, and (2) our designs are based on what our minds can cope with, the ones which we can’t cope with are either unpopular or get banned
- skohan 8y agoBut that's still an advantage humans have over AI isn't it? Humans have the capacity to transfer learned knowledge and behaviors to relatively unrelated domains with immediate utility. Show me an ANN which can do that.
- danans 8y agoYou are right, and there is a whole area of AI research called Transfer Learning attempting to replicate this with machines. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_learning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_learning