4 ms·
What indicates that at some point in the future we wouldn't have the computational power to run neural nets roughly equivalent to a human? It is just a matter o
by Avamander 4y ago
What indicates that at some point in the future we wouldn't have the computational power to run neural nets roughly equivalent to a human? It is just a matter of time unless we stop progressing.
- HideousKojima 4y ago>What indicates that at some point in the future we wouldn't have the computational power to run neural nets roughly equivalent to a human? It's making the assumption that human brains are simply very complex neural nets. Even ignoring religious/spiritual arguments about souls, the simple fact of the matter is that we don't really know a lot about how the human brain/consciousness actually works on a fundamental level (and anyone who tells you otherwise is misinformed or lying).
- Avamander 4y agoNot knowing the exact details doesn't conclude it's not a neural net. Anyone saying otherwise wants to debate religion instead of facts.
- adamsmith143 4y ago>It's making the assumption that human brains are simply very complex neural nets. Even ignoring religious/spiritual arguments about souls, the simple fact of the matter is that we don't really know a lot about how the human brain/consciousness actually works on a fundamental level (and anyone who tells you otherwise is misinformed or lying). How human brains work is irrelevant, we didn't need to solve the Navier Stokes Equation to build Airplanes and we don't need to solve intelligence either. Consciousness is totally outside the bounds of this discussion and also irrelevant to building an intelligent AI.
- simiones 4y agoI don't think that's the contentious part. The problem is the with the assumed exponential increase in intelligence after that, which is nowhere near as easy to imagine as the general idea that you can make an artificial human-equivalent mind.