Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why?
No no, the burden is on the person who claims something "impossible." You have no basis to claim that what he said is impossible.
He can ask why I think something without it being a logical fallacy.
IBM building Blue Brain (full brain neuron simulator)
31–40 of 57 posts
Re: IBM building Blue Brain (full brain neuron simulator)
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's entirely possible we'll develop general AI without understanding consciousness or even some of the other functions of the brain.
Why?
Well I'm not saying I know for sure, just that in some senses we tend to view algorithms as living in an abstract world of mathematics, but the reality is that an actual computation is a physical occurrence in universe. So what we might end up with is an intelligent chunk of the universe being inside of a computer and not a human, and that might not tell us as much as we'd hoped because the intelligence is an emergent property of the computation and not a defined behavior of the algorithm.
Re: IBM building Blue Brain (full brain neuron simulator)
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's entirely possible we'll develop general AI without understanding consciousness or even some of the other functions of the brain.
Why?
Any simulation running neurone interactions has the ability to produce sentience without us knowing why or how it happened. However it would require a phenominal amount of processing power than the simulated 'brain' would have. Human neurones can have up to 10000 synapses connecting them together (on average 7000 per neurone), which each synaptic interaction is a multi-variable of chemical reactions, catalysts, reinforcers, inhibitors and stimulants.
I think our aim should be to simulate the R-Complex part of the triune brain model. This is where our evolutionary intelligence came from and it is the best basis to start. Birds have managed high levels of intelligence without the neocortex present in mammals, so obviously there's more than one route to sentience.
I believe brain density is the key to sentience. In a small animals, like birds, they lose heat quickly and efficiently, which means their 'processors' can pump out more heat without burning out. Where as a human brain would cook itself if it was 'overclocked' as we're at the upper limit of the communication-efficiency ratio, and Elephants are above that ratio but get away with large processing and data storage with a form of 'low-energy' brains.
With the speed of electricity in synapses, a Crow might be able to achive 10 times as many messages in the time it takes one of our brains to make 1 message. Elephants might only make .5 messages a second per synapse. So a crow would benefit greatly by increasing brain density and be able to solve problems to the same degree as a human infant, however humans have phenominal storage in our brains and a crow simply doesn't have the brain mass to compete so we have more data to act on than a crow. Elephants use their brains to remember pretty much everything, they've even been seen taking short cuts that they have 'guessed' between paths they've taken before.
I think the brain is astounding, but to reproduce sentience we should follow evolution; not only because it gives us vast insights into how our brains evolved, but also because it should avoid us ever getting into the irrational AI situation. If an AI is made from simulating a human brain then it is human, which it would be capable of understanding as it would have to be 'taught' and I know I'm human because of the society I know around me that teaches me that I think and act in a similar method as everyone else, just with different data.
:Well, that should teach you for asking why.
Re: IBM building Blue Brain (full brain neuron simulator)
#34Re: IBM building Blue Brain (full brain neuron simulator)
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why?
Any simulation running neurone interactions has the ability to produce sentience without us knowing why or how it happened. However it would require a phenominal amount of processing power than the simulated 'brain' would have. Human neurones can have up to 10000 synapses connecting them together (on average 7000 per neurone), which each synaptic interaction is a multi-variable of chemical reactions, catalysts, reinf…
The future will not be dull, we can at least be sure of that ;)
Re: IBM building Blue Brain (full brain neuron simulator)
#36Awesome (in the archaic sense) that the size estimate is only 200x what Google has currently. Seems trivially within reach in, what, only 8 doublings of performance? They guess at 10 years for "one machine", so what, 15-20 years before it's pda size/priced? An extra full-real-thinking-feeling-creating-art-type-brain in my laptop?! Holy shit. I was actually just wondering why this project wasn't happening yet while re…
The central argument from the book The Singularity Is Near by Ray Kurzweil is on his website ( http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1 ). It was almost completely ignored when it was posted to this forum a few days ago ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=126183 ).
Re: IBM building Blue Brain (full brain neuron simulator)
#37I watch with great interest. Is this how general AI will happen? or is it more like heavier then air flight was: we will get there, we just need to understand the fundamentals of what makes AI better.
Ray Kurzweil argues that we can eventually brute force the solution. However, we can do it more efficiently if we do it at a functional level. Basic acoustic function given as an example ( http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1 ).
Re: IBM building Blue Brain (full brain neuron simulator)
#38Why am I the only person who's terrified rather than excited by every new incremental progression of AI? Do you guys actually look forward to the day when humans are made obsolete? PS: This scientist seems to be exponentiating incorrectly. In ten years he'll have 32-ish times as much processing power; he needs 10 million times as much to get to the level of the entire brain.
Anyone watching the new TV show "Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles"? It seems to me, whether or not to be scared about the progress of AI, depends on a very simple question. Should we treat AI like our slaves, or should we treat AI like our children?
Skynet really exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_%28satellites%29
Re: IBM building Blue Brain (full brain neuron simulator)
#39Things like that make me think it's time to make Asimov's Three Laws* a legal requirement. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics
Its been condensed to "Do no evil".
Re: IBM building Blue Brain (full brain neuron simulator)
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you looking forward to drinking beer for the rest of your life?
No. I'll get a very smart computer from IBM to do it for me.
Seriously, though, there will be no use for you (or any other human) whatsoever post-AI.
And that's the best-case scenario—when AI is being used for the common good. If the people with early access to it try to use it to rule the world and enslave humanity, they'll probably succeed.
I'm not trying to be an irrational doomsday predictor, here; these are just the conclusions that I come to when I work off of the premise "humanity will have access to cheap human-level intelligences".