Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IBM building Blue Brain (full brain neuron simulator)

seedmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: IBM building Blue Brain (full brain neuron simulator)

#41

Post by coffeeaddicted »

SuperThread wrote: post #40
tx wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 premis…

We are good in having human experiences. I think AIs will really like sites like ycombinator or reddit. People sharing their view on the world in a format which is very accessible for computers.

Some guy (maybe Kurzweil?) said something along the line that he was always more afraid of stupidity than of intelligence. And I can agree with that a lot. I'm way more afraid that humans are destroying the world out of stupidy than of hyperintelligences which we created & teached trying to get rid of us.

Re: IBM building Blue Brain (full brain neuron simulator)

#42

Post by michaelneale »

xirium wrote: post #37
michaelneale wrote: post #3

I 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 ).

So if we have brutally powerful machines, that can do a human scale brain - how to we "start" it - is it going to have to learn itself, as we do, or is there tech to "read" our minds into it? (creepy sci fi style).

Re: IBM building Blue Brain (full brain neuron simulator)

#43

Post by pchristensen »

michaelneale wrote: post #42
xirium wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ).

So if we have brutally powerful machines, that can do a human scale brain - how to we "start" it - is it going to have to learn itself, as we do, or is there tech to "read" our minds into it? (creepy sci fi style).

The human brain is mainly just a giant pattern matching organ (filling in gaps, resolving ambiguities, cross-comparing several senses, etc). Simulating how it works is one thing (that's what they've done). "Installing" existing memories, patterns, and connections is a giant step beyond what they're currently doing. This (and probably all) AIs will have to be trained. The hard part will be bootstrapping the first AI to usefulness, but then the next AI is a copy-paste operation away!

Re: IBM building Blue Brain (full brain neuron simulator)

#44

Post by xirium »

michaelneale wrote: post #42
xirium wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ).

So if we have brutally powerful machines, that can do a human scale brain - how to we "start" it - is it going to have to learn itself, as we do, or is there tech to "read" our minds into it? (creepy sci fi style).

Ray Kurzweil notes that brain scan resolution and scan duration are both following Moore's law. So, within 50 years, it may be possible to take a full-resolution, real-time snapshot of a brain. Ray Kurzweil doesn't explore the possibility of snapshots being taken without consent.

Re: IBM building Blue Brain (full brain neuron simulator)

#45

Post by anupamkapoor »

dusklight wrote: post #27
SuperThread wrote: post #11

Why 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?

> Should we treat AI like our slaves, or should we treat AI like our children?

more likely scenario would probably be, how _we_ would be treated by _them_.

Re: IBM building Blue Brain (full brain neuron simulator)

#46

Post by marvin »

xirium wrote: post #36
s3graham wrote: post #23

Awesome (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 ).

I think the reason most people are ignoring Kurzweil is that he sounds like a crackpot. I happen to be a guy who owns an autographed copy of Kurzweil's latest book, but I acknowledge that the idea of the technological singularity sounds too good to be true. There have been thousands of cults proclaiming that the end is near; it would be a coincidence of historical proportions if this one happened to be right.

Kurzweil presents many convincing arguments, but the central tenet is that the doubling of processing power keeps up for another two decades. Due to the nature of nature, what we observe as exponential growth in the end invariably turns out to be logistic growth. If this is so, then at any time the doubling of processing power could slow, and this would mean that we would only, at the most, get one more doubling. Such an event would bring the dream of a near-term universe full of computers to a screeching halt.

I believe that we should be able to create machines that think, but it is important that we aren't blinded by ideology. A massive "singularity movement" that ends up disappointing people, will in the best case delay the advent of such technology due to funding issues. I think the history of AI has demonstrated this quite clearly.

If Kurzweil's estimates are correct, though, another 8-10 years of "exponential growth" in computer hardware will put full-scale simulation of a human brain into supercomputer territory. And frankly, I doubt that evolution has managed to find the most computationally efficient way to achieve intelligence. There's got to be a way to do this.

Re: IBM building Blue Brain (full brain neuron simulator)

#47

Post by marvin »

SuperThread wrote: post #40
tx wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 premis…

This sounds like nothing more than promoting the status quo.

Why do you automatically assume that "no use" in this context would turn out to be a bad thing? The way I see this, if we happen to have greater intelligences working for our common good, we would be able to solve any problem better than a human could - including a possible problem of feeling useless. This would be the best-case scenario, and IMHO it would be much better than the world we have today. Possible solutions to the problem, from my limited human brain, could be bringing the human brains up to the level of the greater intelligence and hence finding new problems to solve, altering human drives so it isn't a problem any longer, abolishing AGI entirely or partially, etc. Any problem could in such a best-case scenario be solved better and faster than humans could.

I agree with you on the worst or worse-case scenario point. There are huge ethical risks and implications in creating very powerful and capable machines. This means that we need to go into this situation with our eyes open, and make sure that we discuss ethics, transparency and consequences from day one.

Enslaving humanity is a basic human drive, and I like to believe that we can do better than that if we try hard. In a pure cost-benefit analysis, it is obvious that it would be best to use such technology to help out everyone.

Re: IBM building Blue Brain (full brain neuron simulator)

#48

Post by truck »

I wonder how they plan to do parameter estimation? Millions of nonlinear dynamic models running, each with at least 3 free parameters in the simplest of neuron models, with an almost infinite number of possible topologies of the networks. That is quite the search space and neuroscience can provide very little prior knowledge.

Re: IBM building Blue Brain (full brain neuron simulator)

#49

Post by SuperThread »

marvin wrote: post #47
SuperThread wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 premis…

This sounds like nothing more than promoting the status quo. Why do you automatically assume that "no use" in this context would turn out to be a bad thing? The way I see this, if we happen to have greater intelligences working for our common good, we would be able to solve any problem better than a human could - including a possible problem of feeling useless. This would be the best-case scenario, and IMHO it would…

>The way I see this, if we happen to have greater intelligences working for our common good, we would be able to solve any problem better than a human could - including a possible problem of feeling useless.

That's a logical error: the existence of a superhuman intelligence might cause more problems than that superhuman intelligence can solve.

When humans solve the personal problem of "feeling useless" they almost without exception do it outside of a vacuum. Their feeling of usefulness tends to stem from the impact that they have on humanity.

Re: IBM building Blue Brain (full brain neuron simulator)

#50

Post by rglullis »

SuperThread wrote: post #30
tx wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great. In simple terms it means that machines will do all the work and we'll drink all the beer.

Are you looking forward to drinking beer for the rest of your life?

Do you have a pet? Do you think it cares about the fact that you are, supposedly, the "intelligent" one?

My point is: what reason do you have to believe that the only lives worth living are the ones where people are on the top of the pyramid?

Post reply on HN