3 ms·
No, it's not remotely true. Roughly equating neurons to petaflops, counting flops, drawing the best fitting straight line, and then announcing a date where the
by CobrastanJorji 6y ago
No, it's not remotely true. Roughly equating neurons to petaflops, counting flops, drawing the best fitting straight line, and then announcing a date where the line gets high enough is not a remotely reasonable way to estimate a "worst case guarantee" date.
It's not impossible that some sort of thing would happen, but anyone who tells you that it can't possibly fail to be achieved in the next 80 years is lying, either to your or to themselves.
- mrshadowgoose 6y agoPlease suggest an alternative estimation technique then. There is a certain # of calculations/s necessary to meaningfully emulate a neuron. We currently have no idea what level of fidelity is required, but we can make guesses for each of the levels of fidelity that might be required. The estimates that assume the highest (and likely unnecessary) level of fidelity currently top out at 2100. For the record, I never claimed that failure was impossible, I used the phrase "on track". It's totally possible that there might be some surprise quantum weirdness going on that would be intractable to emulate with classical computers, but we've found no evidence of that to date.