3 ms·
> Again, if we're talking about frequency (30GHz, 1THz) the brain is faster due to the way it's organized not because it operates at high frequencies. Brain fr
by brutt 7y ago
> Again, if we're talking about frequency (30GHz, 1THz) the brain is faster due to the way it's organized not because it operates at high frequencies.
Brain frequency is measured in single digit Hertz. Yep, it's much faster at many tasks due to the way it's organized.
> Not in any meaningful way and we certainly aren't anywhere near "single-atom processors".
We are, but it doesn't look like processor at all. Imagine that you have just two operations: match and propagate (copy). If input matches predefined pattern, then signal will propagate to next stage. If not, then signal will be lost. Such simple architecture can perform complex calculations with massive inputs and massive depth of processing area. If it implemented as optical flow, then it can process data at speed of light.
- close04 7y ago> We are, but But we aren't really are we? >> we just either haven't actually found a way to do some of those things, or at least not in a feasible, useful way. We have a lot of theoretical concepts, we might even have the technology to build something like this. But we just haven't put it all together, and building this into a useful product is far into the future. My cold fusion powered portable true quantum computer says so. :)
- brutt 7y agoCan you calculate frequency of these networks? https://phys.org/news/2020-01-physics-analog-recurrent-neural-network.html https://phys.org/news/2020-01-physics-analog-recurrent-neura... https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208975-ai-made-from-a-sheet-of-glass-can-recognise-numbers-just-by-looking/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208975-ai-made-from-a-...
- close04 7y agoLove the 2 articles (at least one thoroughly discussed on HN), hate that you manage to bundle so many fallacies together (a strawman here, a loaded question there, etc.). You're either refuting an argument I never made, or showing "evidence" that doesn't support the claim, or asking a question where every answer will make it look like I agree with your point. OP said that: > it's possible to make faster processor than 30GHz. Even 1THz is possible with modern tech [...] millions of super fast single-atom processors This is the statement I contradicted and this is the statement you may want to refer to. First time you defended it with a "yes but" yet after 2 attempts you still haven't provided actual examples of either. We already agreed that even things like the brain can be pretty powerful and yet completely different from how we do artificial processing these days. But that was not the point. We've had such concepts already working for years with sieve analysis [0] where stacks of sieves can give you the size and sometimes even shape of objects just by placing them in. Or analog computing that solves the travelling salesman problem faster than any digital computer can today [1]. But we obviously can't build anything useful with it that can surpass what we already use now. Today we cannot build any useful or feasible 30GHz (let alone 1THz) or single-atom CPUs. We have stuff that's "promising", "indicates the possibility", and "on paper". As I said, we may even have the tech to do it but haven't connected all the dots yet which still means we can't do it today. At least not without moving the goalposts so much that the discussion stop making sense. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_analysis [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/news020520-12 https://www.nature.com/articles/news020520-12