7 ms·

They aren't the same thing. They are different classes of objects, different tasks. This comparison is kind of silly. I'd hate my computer to have the memory a

They aren't the same thing. They are different classes of objects, different tasks. This comparison is kind of silly. I'd hate my computer to have the memory accuracy or the computational accuracy of my brain. I'd hate to have the creativity and inspiration of a computer. Delete being such a nontrivial operation is probably a good thing for humans. Copy being imperfect probably has something to do with the phenomenon we call imagination. We use computers because they are complementary, not substitutive. They're just so fundamentally different.

EmilioMartinez 6y ago
I don't see how any of that makes the comparison "silly". It's not like we have so many instances of computer paradigms to go around comparing.
- kristopolous 6y ago
  It's like measuring a gun in units of swords. You can achieve similar ends but they aren't the same. Or the companionship of a spouse in units of pets. The fundamental unit is at the affect level, not the application. That's a very important distinction. Any model comparing the application then is fundamentally misinformation. It's even worse because it suggests an equivocation is possible. As if you can get X units of dogs as a substitute for Y units of spouse. You just have to find the magic ratio! Wrong framings can stick people in insolvable problems well, sometimes for generations. It's really bad. They're fundamentally different and pretending otherwise is just going in the one of the most useless directions possible
derefr 6y ago
> memory accuracy There are individuals with very good memories for all sorts of things, who seem to manage to reconsolidate their memories near-losslessly (at least within the confines of the mental schema they organize said memories into.) Surgeons with anatomy, lawyers and judges with case-law, etc. At this point I’m convinced that the lossy method humans intuitively reconsolidate memories with, isn’t so much a feature of our mental architecture, as it is a part of the “operating system” we build up on top of our mental architecture—i.e. it’s a skill, something we can learn (or accidentally invent) a better approach to. > computational accuracy We compute ratios with extremely high accuracy/precision. Just look at a professional billiards player. We don’t have a good mind for integer math; but you can translate most integer math problems into ratio problems, and then they become intuitively solvable to humans. (This is basically what geometry is.)
- satvikpendem 6y ago
  You can even construct memory palaces which are very easy to learn. I still remember them from 10 years ago.
- partyboat1586 6y ago
  A surgeon might remember anatomy with great accuracy but he is unlikely to remember the details of some case law nearly as well. Our memories are associative, that is how they differ from computers. It's easy for a surgeon to remember anatomy because he has been immersed in it for a long time and it all interconnects, i.e there are a lot of associations to call up the memory. Computers on the other hand could remember 20 facts about anatomy and 20 facts about case law no problem without needing any framework to attach them to.
- jbay808 6y ago
  I remember when I first took a data structures course, learning things like trees and linked lists, I had a total paradigm shift with respect to how I understood my own mind. I had never really thought about the different ways that data could be organized, and how they perform differently. I figured that since this was so basic to computer science, my own mind couldn't be doing something completely different. It might not be the same in detail as any computer data structure, but it couldn't be completely unrelated either. I realized that data structures might make information feel different. For example, I can only tell you what the 16th letter of the alphabet is by counting from "A". I can't sing the alphabet song backwards. These are at least qualitatively characteristics of a singly linked list. The same goes for my phone number and my credit card number. I wouldn't be able to dictate them backwards, except by mentally traversing them forwards and then holding the whole number in my conscious memory as I reverse the digits, or if that's too tiring, traversing it forwards multiple times and stopping at different points. I have many detailed memories of past events, conversations, and trivial facts, but it's hard for me to remember them on command. I need some kind of prompt to point me to the right index where I can retrieve it. I agree a lot with the interpretation that we have a messy OS that bungles memory management and does lossy compression and a poor job of disk defrag, running on some very impressive hardware.
  - 6y ago
canjobear 6y ago
When we say the brain has poor computational accuracy, we’re usually talking about the conscious brain we’re aware of. But our low-level motor actions and perceptions, coordinated by the brain, require a lot of precise computation. These low-level brain computations are the thing to compare to AI, not our conscious thinking. Our conscious mind is more like low-precision software running on top of an enormously powerful computer.
- joesb 6y ago
  > But our low-level motor actions and perceptions, coordinated by the brain, require a lot of precise computation. But we don't actually do that precise computation though. try repeating any action exactly and you will see some inaccuracy.
  - maskboy 6y ago
    no, you will see some variability
    - ramblenode 6y ago
      Accuracy is a function of variability and bias.
- jakeogh 6y ago
  It's unlikely we compute in any conventional sense, the hardware is reality, and is going to exploit every available effect that is energetically efficient. Letting FPGA's "go" into the analog realm is an interesting window: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21253267 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21253267 Glial brain cells: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22161192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22161192
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  > But our low-level motor actions and perceptions, coordinated by the brain, require a lot of precise computation. That accuracy is more likely achieved through fast, analog feedback loops than precise calculation.
technovader 6y ago
Exactly. We shouldn't be so arrogant in thinking the modern computer is the same thing as a human brain. This comparison is pointless. The human brain is beyond comprehension. Computers are just logic calculators.
- ryukafalz 6y ago
  >The human brain is beyond comprehension. Many things in the world were beyond our comprehension, until they weren't. I see no reason why the human brain's inner workings should evade our understanding indefinitely.

EmilioMartinez 6y ago

I don't see how any of that makes the comparison "silly". It's not like we have so many instances of computer paradigms to go around comparing.

kristopolous 6y ago
It's like measuring a gun in units of swords. You can achieve similar ends but they aren't the same. Or the companionship of a spouse in units of pets. The fundamental unit is at the affect level, not the application. That's a very important distinction. Any model comparing the application then is fundamentally misinformation. It's even worse because it suggests an equivocation is possible. As if you can get X units of dogs as a substitute for Y units of spouse. You just have to find the magic ratio! Wrong framings can stick people in insolvable problems well, sometimes for generations. It's really bad. They're fundamentally different and pretending otherwise is just going in the one of the most useless directions possible

derefr 6y ago

> memory accuracy There are individuals with very good memories for all sorts of things, who seem to manage to reconsolidate their memories near-losslessly (at least within the confines of the mental schema they organize said memories into.) Surgeons with anatomy, lawyers and judges with case-law, etc. At this point I’m convinced that the lossy method humans intuitively reconsolidate memories with, isn’t so much a feature of our mental architecture, as it is a part of the “operating system” we build up on top of our mental architecture—i.e. it’s a skill, something we can learn (or accidentally invent) a better approach to. > computational accuracy We compute ratios with extremely high accuracy/precision. Just look at a professional billiards player. We don’t have a good mind for integer math; but you can translate most integer math problems into ratio problems, and then they become intuitively solvable to humans. (This is basically what geometry is.)

satvikpendem 6y ago
You can even construct memory palaces which are very easy to learn. I still remember them from 10 years ago.
partyboat1586 6y ago
A surgeon might remember anatomy with great accuracy but he is unlikely to remember the details of some case law nearly as well. Our memories are associative, that is how they differ from computers. It's easy for a surgeon to remember anatomy because he has been immersed in it for a long time and it all interconnects, i.e there are a lot of associations to call up the memory. Computers on the other hand could remember 20 facts about anatomy and 20 facts about case law no problem without needing any framework to attach them to.
jbay808 6y ago
I remember when I first took a data structures course, learning things like trees and linked lists, I had a total paradigm shift with respect to how I understood my own mind. I had never really thought about the different ways that data could be organized, and how they perform differently. I figured that since this was so basic to computer science, my own mind couldn't be doing something completely different. It might not be the same in detail as any computer data structure, but it couldn't be completely unrelated either. I realized that data structures might make information feel different. For example, I can only tell you what the 16th letter of the alphabet is by counting from "A". I can't sing the alphabet song backwards. These are at least qualitatively characteristics of a singly linked list. The same goes for my phone number and my credit card number. I wouldn't be able to dictate them backwards, except by mentally traversing them forwards and then holding the whole number in my conscious memory as I reverse the digits, or if that's too tiring, traversing it forwards multiple times and stopping at different points. I have many detailed memories of past events, conversations, and trivial facts, but it's hard for me to remember them on command. I need some kind of prompt to point me to the right index where I can retrieve it. I agree a lot with the interpretation that we have a messy OS that bungles memory management and does lossy compression and a poor job of disk defrag, running on some very impressive hardware.
- 6y ago

canjobear 6y ago

When we say the brain has poor computational accuracy, we’re usually talking about the conscious brain we’re aware of. But our low-level motor actions and perceptions, coordinated by the brain, require a lot of precise computation. These low-level brain computations are the thing to compare to AI, not our conscious thinking. Our conscious mind is more like low-precision software running on top of an enormously powerful computer.

joesb 6y ago
> But our low-level motor actions and perceptions, coordinated by the brain, require a lot of precise computation. But we don't actually do that precise computation though. try repeating any action exactly and you will see some inaccuracy.
- maskboy 6y ago
  no, you will see some variability
  - ramblenode 6y ago
    Accuracy is a function of variability and bias.
jakeogh 6y ago
It's unlikely we compute in any conventional sense, the hardware is reality, and is going to exploit every available effect that is energetically efficient. Letting FPGA's "go" into the analog realm is an interesting window: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21253267 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21253267 Glial brain cells: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22161192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22161192
TeMPOraL 6y ago
> But our low-level motor actions and perceptions, coordinated by the brain, require a lot of precise computation. That accuracy is more likely achieved through fast, analog feedback loops than precise calculation.

technovader 6y ago

Exactly. We shouldn't be so arrogant in thinking the modern computer is the same thing as a human brain. This comparison is pointless. The human brain is beyond comprehension. Computers are just logic calculators.

ryukafalz 6y ago
>The human brain is beyond comprehension. Many things in the world were beyond our comprehension, until they weren't. I see no reason why the human brain's inner workings should evade our understanding indefinitely.