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

Nanowire synapses 30,000x faster than nature’s

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–46 of 46 posts

Re: Nanowire synapses 30,000x faster than nature’s

#41

Post by samus »

IIAOPSW wrote: post #38
thrown_22 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That computers aren't brains.

A brain can certainly memorize and follow a fixed set of rules to update the tape on a Turing machine. Therefore the brain is at least a Universal Computer. Furthermore there is nothing in the domain of sensory-motor tasks that is in principle beyond computer controlled robotics. So then praytell, what can a brain do that a computer can't? Careful. The current answers to that question live on a small island that's be…

The answer to that question is capabilities usually attributed to Strong AI. Depending on who you ask, we are currently either 10 years or forever away from that, which pretty much means the same.

Re: Nanowire synapses 30,000x faster than nature’s

#42

Post by IIAOPSW »

thrown_22 wrote: post #39
IIAOPSW wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A brain can certainly memorize and follow a fixed set of rules to update the tape on a Turing machine. Therefore the brain is at least a Universal Computer. Furthermore there is nothing in the domain of sensory-motor tasks that is in principle beyond computer controlled robotics. So then praytell, what can a brain do that a computer can't? Careful. The current answers to that question live on a small island that's be…

>Careful. The current answers to that question live on a small island that's been eroding at an alarming pace. Some project that the island will be totally washed away in our lifetime. You sure you want to build there? Yeah.

Elaborate why?

Re: Nanowire synapses 30,000x faster than nature’s

#43

Post by TheRealPomax »

yourapostasy wrote: post #32
TheRealPomax wrote: post #12

Not exactly impressive, nature is famous for calling it quits once something works well enough. Anyone who wants to can create a non-biological neuron/axion connection that runs orders of magnitude faster. The real question is "but does it actually do something" because that's where nature shines pretty well.

> ...nature is famous for calling it quits once something works well enough... Great, so we're just bags of meat sashaying around with loads of technical debt baggage via the slapdash coding delivered by nature in a multi-billion year project. The ongoing result of always picking good and cheap over fast.

you bet, nature looked at min-max strategies and went "k but what if min-med instead?" then did that for a few billion years.

Re: Nanowire synapses 30,000x faster than nature’s

#44

Post by TheRealPomax »

miovoid wrote: post #18
TheRealPomax wrote: post #12

Not exactly impressive, nature is famous for calling it quits once something works well enough. Anyone who wants to can create a non-biological neuron/axion connection that runs orders of magnitude faster. The real question is "but does it actually do something" because that's where nature shines pretty well.

Turing and Church said yes.

Said yes to... what? That artificial neurons can do something useful? Because those weren't a thing when they were scienceing it up.

Re: Nanowire synapses 30,000x faster than nature’s

#45

Post by TheRealPomax »

TeacherTortoise wrote: post #34
TheRealPomax wrote: post #12

Not exactly impressive, nature is famous for calling it quits once something works well enough. Anyone who wants to can create a non-biological neuron/axion connection that runs orders of magnitude faster. The real question is "but does it actually do something" because that's where nature shines pretty well.

> nature is famous for calling it quits Yes, evolution builds upon what went before rather than starting fresh, but nature never calls it quits. It's a process, not a thinking entity. In any stable population there will be variances that have neither a benefit or cost until environmental pressures force it to "select" the most appropriate. You have to look at a longer timescale to see the adaptations take hold. You c…

> You have to look at a longer timescale to see the adaptations take hold.

Hence calling it quits: nature will do what it needs to do until things work well enough, and then calls it quits for that particular feature set until such time where what used to be good enough isn't good enough anymore.

Re: Nanowire synapses 30,000x faster than nature’s

#46

Post by TeacherTortoise »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #45
TeacherTortoise wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nature is famous for calling it quits Yes, evolution builds upon what went before rather than starting fresh, but nature never calls it quits. It's a process, not a thinking entity. In any stable population there will be variances that have neither a benefit or cost until environmental pressures force it to "select" the most appropriate. You have to look at a longer timescale to see the adaptations take hold. You c…

> You have to look at a longer timescale to see the adaptations take hold. Hence calling it quits: nature will do what it needs to do until things work well enough, and then calls it quits for that particular feature set until such time where what used to be good enough isn't good enough anymore.

I think we are working from different definitions of "calling it quits"
Post reply on HN