3 ms·
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
by 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 agoNo 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 agoI assume it was a typo, and they meant 10^18.