3 ms·
Sadly the metaphor doesn't hold. I heard somewhere that something like 19 petaflops is roughly equivalent of the processing power required. I don't recall exact
by smosher 15y ago
Sadly the metaphor doesn't hold. I heard somewhere that something like 19 petaflops is roughly equivalent of the processing power required. I don't recall exactly from whose arse that number managed egress but I suspect it's more on the mark. Obviously 1e15 transistors is not going to give you that.
A transistor makes a bad neuron. Neurons have complex behaviour in and of themselves, and maintain various kinds of state that persist after action potentials (i.e. after firing.) Transistors don't do that individually, so the analogy is quite bogus. Not only that, but connections between (synapses) are not as trivial as a simple wire and even engage in two-way communications. Considering each neuron may have multiple inbound and outbound connections, sometimes over (relatively) vast distances, counting the neurons alone is inaccurate. And I haven't even gotten to diffuse signals. There's a lot of overhead.
- roel_v 15y agoI don't think the point is that 1 transistor = 1 neuron. There need to be x transistors to simulate, in software, the behavior of 1 neuron (I'm not sure if the calculations we're talking about take that into account, but your second paragraph is a straw man imo).
- smosher 15y agoThe article compared the processing power of the human brain to 1 transistor per neuron. No idea where you get the strawman from, since that's exactly what I was commenting on in that paragraph.