4 ms·
Of course, speaking from physics - yes. Its a local maxima. Its one of the shortcoming of natural selection and genetic programming. We have better tools to d
by 1971genocide 11y ago
Of course, speaking from physics - yes. Its a local maxima.
Its one of the shortcoming of natural selection and genetic programming.
We have better tools to do sequential computation than biology can match. And soon we will be able to harness the power of quantum mechanics to do our bidding.
But the point I am trying to make is whatever approach we use, sequential or parallel, Just in terms of computational complexity. The brain's capacity is greater than the sum of the computers humans have ever produced. Just using that metric we are still far away from having the tools to simulate brains, how long will it take for Intel to compress the complexity of ALL computers ever produced into a single chip ?
Surely its not tomorrow ? maybe 20-30 years ? I do not know.
What I do know is in 2015 it seems that there is a lot of work that needs to be done just from a hardware perspective.
- LesZedCB 11y agoI would agree that the computational complexity of every single quark in every single atomic particle in every atom in every synapse is far far greater than the computational power we poses at this day. I just think it's a red herring to chase down that level of computational completixy (for now. True physical simulations truly amaze me, and I can't wait to see them be more granular and accurate). When it comes to intelligence, I think we are mostly missing the algorithm, not the computational power. I think once somebody finds the algorithm (which may be very soon in my own opinion), we will have more than enough computational power to blow the mind away by orders of magnitude.