4 ms·

I think this is the wishful thinking of people who want to believe that consciousness is a deep mystery that won't be solved in their lifetimes. All while the c

I think this is the wishful thinking of people who want to believe that consciousness is a deep mystery that won't be solved in their lifetimes. All while the capabilities of simulated neural networks are eclipsing humans in relatively short period of time. It's possible human thought leverages quantum processes. That doesn't mean it's likely.

jsbisviewtiful 1y ago
Eh, you’re giving technology too much credit and not considering what biology has developed to do naturally and far more efficiently. It’s also postulated that computational technology is nearing its current limits. Humanity’s hubris around technology is going to be our downfall, like how we think we can “stop” climate change with theorized technology even after we let the climate go too far into the red. We are greatly overestimating and exaggerating what tech can do. DDG’s bot’s summary of the linked article and one other: “The computational power of the human brain is often estimated in floating-point operations per second (FLOPS), with estimates ranging from 10^12 to 10^28 FLOPS, depending on the level of detail considered. In comparison, modern supercomputers can perform up to several hundred petaflops, but the brain is believed to operate at a similar or even higher efficiency due to its unique structure and processing capabilities.” https://foglets.com/supercomputer-vs-human-brain/ https://foglets.com/supercomputer-vs-human-brain/
- lostmsu 1y ago
  No idea how they got 10^28. There are only 10^11 neurons and their firing rate is 2*10^2. Even if you assume they do fp16 accumulation (which I doubt, it is unlikely they are that precise), that adds maybe 10^5 to the total of 2*10^18. That's a very optimistic estimate.
  - nobodyandproud 1y ago
    I assume it was a typo, and they meant 10^18.
techno_tsar 1y ago
The 'capabilities' of simulated neural networks have nothing to do with consciousness.
- breakyerself 1y ago
  I just don't find that convincing. If every aspect of human planning, skill, and knowledge are reproducable via classical computing then it seems unlikely that consciousness is some special case that requires quantum processes.
  - rendall 1y ago
    > If every aspect of human planning, skill, and knowledge are reproducable... Neither the article nor the paper discuss consciousness, only biological computing capacity considering quantum states. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adt4623 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adt4623 Today's classical computing accomplishments are impressive, but nowhere near what a human can do. Perhaps someday soon a single AI could (in the words of Heinlein) "change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly" but that day is not yet here. If we struggle to build such a device, we might consider that our computers are too limited.
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  Define 'consciousness' before proceeding.

jsbisviewtiful 1y ago

Eh, you’re giving technology too much credit and not considering what biology has developed to do naturally and far more efficiently. It’s also postulated that computational technology is nearing its current limits. Humanity’s hubris around technology is going to be our downfall, like how we think we can “stop” climate change with theorized technology even after we let the climate go too far into the red. We are greatly overestimating and exaggerating what tech can do. DDG’s bot’s summary of the linked article and one other: “The computational power of the human brain is often estimated in floating-point operations per second (FLOPS), with estimates ranging from 10^12 to 10^28 FLOPS, depending on the level of detail considered. In comparison, modern supercomputers can perform up to several hundred petaflops, but the brain is believed to operate at a similar or even higher efficiency due to its unique structure and processing capabilities.” https://foglets.com/supercomputer-vs-human-brain/ https://foglets.com/supercomputer-vs-human-brain/

lostmsu 1y ago
No idea how they got 10^28. There are only 10^11 neurons and their firing rate is 2*10^2. Even if you assume they do fp16 accumulation (which I doubt, it is unlikely they are that precise), that adds maybe 10^5 to the total of 2*10^18. That's a very optimistic estimate.
- nobodyandproud 1y ago
  I assume it was a typo, and they meant 10^18.

techno_tsar 1y ago

The 'capabilities' of simulated neural networks have nothing to do with consciousness.

breakyerself 1y ago
I just don't find that convincing. If every aspect of human planning, skill, and knowledge are reproducable via classical computing then it seems unlikely that consciousness is some special case that requires quantum processes.
- rendall 1y ago
  > If every aspect of human planning, skill, and knowledge are reproducable... Neither the article nor the paper discuss consciousness, only biological computing capacity considering quantum states. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adt4623 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adt4623 Today's classical computing accomplishments are impressive, but nowhere near what a human can do. Perhaps someday soon a single AI could (in the words of Heinlein) "change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly" but that day is not yet here. If we struggle to build such a device, we might consider that our computers are too limited.
IAmBroom 1y ago
Define 'consciousness' before proceeding.