Supercomputer takes 40 minutes to simulate 1 second of a human brain

Post by theseoafs » Sun, Jan 12, 2014, 5:59 PM UTC

NAFV_P wrote: post #38

archgoon wrote: post #8

Better writeup (cites sources!) and discussion from 5 months ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6157157 And the Riken Lab press release http://www.riken.jp/en/pr/press/2013/20130802_1/ This is a link to the poster presentation. There does not seem to be a full paper associated with this research yet. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2202/14/S1/P163 The NEST simulator (The researchers Morrison and Diesman are…

I looked up NEST, written in C++ with Python. What, no LISP? When I hear AI being discussed LISP comes up fairly often. In the book "Meta Maths: The Quest for Omega" by Greg Chaitin, he mentions that Kurt Godel's work had a notation that was uncannily similar to LISP code. On the other paw he compares Turing's idea of code as something more akin to machine code.

Post by NAFV_P » Sun, Jan 12, 2014, 6:09 PM UTC

theseoafs wrote: post #41

NAFV_P wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I looked up NEST, written in C++ with Python. What, no LISP? When I hear AI being discussed LISP comes up fairly often. In the book "Meta Maths: The Quest for Omega" by Greg Chaitin, he mentions that Kurt Godel's work had a notation that was uncannily similar to LISP code. On the other paw he compares Turing's idea of code as something more akin to machine code.

Historically speaking, Lisp was the de-facto language of AI for quite a bit of time. That's only been the case for classical AI research, however. People working on AI and machine learning these days aren't necessarily all working in Lisp -- they're usually working in high-performance languages, or in interpreted languages with high-performance libraries (e.g. Python plus numpy or scipy or what have you).

Post by fragsworth » Sun, Jan 12, 2014, 6:48 PM UTC

Someone wrote: post #24

fragsworth wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in the short term, companies that develop these things will behave ethically without any oversight (by making machines "enjoy" what they are doing) because doing something else would be inefficient or counterproductive. Why would you make an expensive thinking machine miserable? Humans that are happy are way more productive - and machines that are based off humans will be as well. In the long term, if and whe…

Ethically? I bet they will kill them thousands of times during development. Suppose you, at one stage, have a simulation of a brain that isn't quite there; it talks and sees, but it's audio system doesn't work right. What do you do? Even live debugging to repair it can be controversial ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlear_implant#Criticism_and_... )

Post by ExpiredLink » Sun, Jan 12, 2014, 7:41 PM UTC

smky80 wrote: post #42

dTal wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your New Statesman link only talks about pseudoscience and doesn't support your assertion. The mind is an emergent property of the brain. If you can't simulate a mind by simulating a brain, then what in your opinion would it take? Or is it impossible because we all have ineffable souls that the laws of physics mysteriously cannot access?

This is exactly the sort of problem that convinced me that consciousness/mind must be a fundamental part of the (multi/uni)verse, and not something that "emerges" from matter. I find it terribly unconvincing that a specific arrangement of matter, or even an algorithm in software, just simply "spawns" a discrete consciousness from nothing. It might make sense if there was an underlying "consciousness field" or some su…