3 ms·

Skeptical or not, we've already sequenced a complete blueprint for it that is running on billions of copies of firmware in the wild. True, we can't even emulat

Skeptical or not, we've already sequenced a complete blueprint for it that is running on billions of copies of firmware in the wild. True, we can't even emulate the firmware ourselves. But we know it's possible and literally have a copy of the code that builds it. We just have to figure out how to emulate it. That puts a hard upper limit on how long all this can take. (It can't be "forever" since there is no requirement for the emulation to happen in real-time.) As far as processing speedups, meanwhile, we don't even have 3D chips yet, just a single layer of silicon. Recent innovation: http://www.kurzweilai.net/first-true-3d-microchip-created-cambridge-scientists http://www.kurzweilai.net/first-true-3d-microchip-created-ca... Given that a human brain is like 3 pounds of goo, and we have the genetic code that builds it, the rest is just biological reverse engineering + code refactoring of a binary blob without comments. I am not saying this process is easy, but the idea that we can't make some solid predictions is fairly weak. We already do genetic engineering. I wouldn't place much money on a true artificial mind still not existing in 40 years.

DanBC 13y ago
> I wouldn't place much money on a true artificial mind still not existing in 40 years. We said that in the 50s, and every decade since then. While we understand a lot more about the brain there are still gaps in knowledge and ability to scan a working brain. It may turn out to be a system with sensitive dependance on initial conditions. There are about 85 billion neurons in a human brain. (In transistors that's only about 45 or so Intel's 10-core Xeon Westmere-EX.) that number is a relatively new refinement of the old 100bn number. Not finding out how many neurons we have until the 21st centuary makes me think that there is enty of work left. We don't even know why Golgi Stains miss neurons.
- logicallee 13y ago
  Right, my reference to the fact that we still use flat CPU's is in part referring to the transistor count. Also you are referring to a commercial mass-produced CPU that debuted at $4200 nearly three years ago - and was considered overly expensive at that price.[1] And you're comparing this tiny single package to the human brain directly, not even multiplying by a farm of them, which would be more than reasonable if we knew what we were trying to emulate. The issue, as you state, is that we don't really know what's going on. However there is no reason to assume a fundamental barrier to continued innovation as we learn more and more, and computers can do more and more. [1] http://www.dailytech.com/Intel+Airs+10Core+Xeon+Server+Chips+at+Insanely+High+Prices/article21311.htm http://www.dailytech.com/Intel+Airs+10Core+Xeon+Server+Chips...
twobits 13y ago
> I wouldn't place much money on a true artificial mind still not existing in 40 years. I would say 20.

DanBC 13y ago

> I wouldn't place much money on a true artificial mind still not existing in 40 years. We said that in the 50s, and every decade since then. While we understand a lot more about the brain there are still gaps in knowledge and ability to scan a working brain. It may turn out to be a system with sensitive dependance on initial conditions. There are about 85 billion neurons in a human brain. (In transistors that's only about 45 or so Intel's 10-core Xeon Westmere-EX.) that number is a relatively new refinement of the old 100bn number. Not finding out how many neurons we have until the 21st centuary makes me think that there is enty of work left. We don't even know why Golgi Stains miss neurons.

logicallee 13y ago
Right, my reference to the fact that we still use flat CPU's is in part referring to the transistor count. Also you are referring to a commercial mass-produced CPU that debuted at $4200 nearly three years ago - and was considered overly expensive at that price.[1] And you're comparing this tiny single package to the human brain directly, not even multiplying by a farm of them, which would be more than reasonable if we knew what we were trying to emulate. The issue, as you state, is that we don't really know what's going on. However there is no reason to assume a fundamental barrier to continued innovation as we learn more and more, and computers can do more and more. [1] http://www.dailytech.com/Intel+Airs+10Core+Xeon+Server+Chips+at+Insanely+High+Prices/article21311.htm http://www.dailytech.com/Intel+Airs+10Core+Xeon+Server+Chips...

twobits 13y ago

> I wouldn't place much money on a true artificial mind still not existing in 40 years. I would say 20.