The point is not whether we can afford to power the machine. The point is that the power discrepancy suggests that the methods we're using are radically differ

The point is not whether we can afford to power the machine. The point is that the power discrepancy suggests that the methods we're using are radically different than the methods the human brain employs (evidenced by their dramatically different efficiencies). Predicting radical advancement given past performance is a leap of faith. > Why would we even want cars to calculate the way humans do? The fact of the matter is that humans are orders of magnitude better at object recognition than computers. You may believe that will change in the near future, but that's not yet been demonstrated.