3 ms·
Idk if there’s any meaningful metric which we can compare brain compute with digital compute. Bc… we can do training and inference at the same time… while main
by dartos 2y ago
Idk if there’s any meaningful metric which we can compare brain compute with digital compute.
Bc… we can do training and inference at the same time… while maintaining balance, operating machinery, or any number of tasks which are computationally expensive for digital computers. Maybe that implies we train and infer more efficiently, but it may just as well imply that our brains are more computationally powerful.
Maybe our conscious mind has less compute than H100s, but our entire brain maybe not.
It’s an apples to oranges comparison any which way.
- Davidzheng 2y agoI don't understand how differences in algorithms (training/inference) affect this argument. I just want to argue that in aggregate the human brain just cannot do nearly as much operations of any kind as a super cluster of gpus. I guess the only way to know for sure is to faithfully simulate a human brain inside one of these clusters in real time...
- dartos 2y ago> much operations of any kind What is a brain operation? How do you measure that? My point is that you can’t a make your argument because you’re comparing two subjects that have nothing in common beside the vague colloquial notion of “computing” What and how your brain computes your response to my comment is wildly different than how digital hardware does. They’re apples and oranges. No way to compare them on even ground, so no way to make the argument you’re trying to make. We don’t have a shared metric with which to measure digital computation speed and organic brain computation speed, so your argument doesn’t make sense on the outset.
- Davidzheng 2y agoI agree with most of this but I think if one system can rather accurately simulate another I would say it is computationally stronger