6 ms·
He was talking about how current models of the brain, such as the one by IBM (http://www.kurzweilai.net/ibm-simulates-530-billon-neurons-100-trillion-synapses-o
by jacalulu 14y ago
He was talking about how current models of the brain, such as the one by IBM (http://www.kurzweilai.net/ibm-simulates-530-billon-neurons-100-trillion-synapses-on-worlds-fastest-supercomputer http://www.kurzweilai.net/ibm-simulates-530-billon-neurons-1...) which has over 5 billion neurons, might be larger than Spaun, but none have demonstrated any of the AI that Spaun has. In particular, it's ability to solve basic problems, similar to that of a toddler. He didn't mention a problem in particular, simply that some of the things Spaun was able to solve, they weren't entirely sure how to explain it - but they were sure that they could reproduce. Which to me echos the fact that the brain is a very complex thing that we are still very far away from understanding.
- mvleming 14y agoOh. I was under the impression you were saying the team behind Spaun found unexpected and unexplained results. I was excited because I think we'll find unexpected and unexplained results when we create a model that brings together the constituents of whatever make up the brain; they'll rise up and create something 'magical'. It's like how the saying goes: the whole is more than the sum of its parts. It's funny because just today I was feeling sad that software no longer feels magical to me anymore because I've learned so much about how it works. It makes me think of consciousness.