From: Ben Goertzel (ben@goertzel.org)
Date: Mon Jan 23 2006 - 09:16:26 MST
Terminology is being used very loosely in this thread.
I believe the Novamente design suffices for the creation of a "mind in
a box". Whether you want to call this a "brain in a box" is a whole
other issue -- we are not trying to emulate human brain function,
which as Richard notes is not really feasible given the currently poor
understanding of the human brain.
-- Ben
On 1/23/06, Richard Loosemore <rpwl@lightlink.com> wrote:
> Not any time soon: nobody has the detailed information necessary to
> actually *do* that. Assembling a computer with the same number of
> processing units and wires as a brain is pretty easy: making all the
> processors behave exactly as they behave in a particular brain, and
> making all the wires exactly follow the neural pathways in that same
> particular brain, are devastatingly hard with current technology. I
> mean, the word "hard" is a silly understatement here! I don't think it
> will be done before a superintelligent AGI is built.
>
> Which is why I castigated the IBM brain simulation project in a previous
> post. You hear a lot about the fantastic things achieved with fMRI
> technology: don't believe the hype. It's just marketing BS.
>
> Place a call with your friendly local neuroscientist today: ask if the
> IBM project is going to supply details of every neuron, the route of
> every axon path, the strength of every synapse and the spatial structure
> of every dendritic tree in a brain. Listen carefully to the answer.
>
> Richard Loosemore
>
> H C wrote:
> > Well, it is arguable that IF you simulate an entire human brain, then
> > you could create an AGI, in a sense (I guess you would be simulating an
> > actual person). Thus, your Singularity take-off happens.
> >
> > -hegem0n
> >
> >
> >> From: Richard Loosemore <rpwl@lightlink.com>
> >> Reply-To: sl4@sl4.org
> >> To: sl4@sl4.org
> >> Subject: Re: Why invest in AGI?
> >> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 21:18:02 -0500
> >>
> >> There is only one problem with your story: I very much fear that it
> >> is not true that if we got brain-power hardware, we would get an AI.
> >>
> >> If you gave Microsoft a set of four Blue Gene-L machines, they *still*
> >> would not be able to deliver a bug-free version of Word any time in
> >> the next century.
> >>
> >> We probably have the hardware power right now. What we lack are the
> >> right theoretical approach and software techniques. More
> >> particularly, I think we lack the right software-construction tools.
> >>
> >> You might respond that it does neverthless make a compact story to
> >> give to an investor: I'm not sure, though, because I think they know,
> >> intuitively, that it has a false ring to it.
> >>
> >> Richard Loosemore.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dani Eder wrote:
> >>
> >>> My simple story for potential investors:
> >>>
> >>> The human brain has 100 billion neurons, each with
> >>> 10,000
> >>> synapses firing at an average of 100 Hz, for a total
> >>> synapse
> >>> firing rate of 100 x 10^15/sec.
> >>>
> >>> A modern CPU chip (Athlon 64 X2 4800+, 2.4 GHz) has
> >>> two cores
> >>> each processing an average of 1.5 calculations/cycle x
> >>> 64 bits.
> >>> This gives a bit rate of 460 x 10^9.
> >>>
> >>> There is some question about how much data a synapse
> >>> firing
> >>> equates to, but assume 1 bit/synapse firing for now. Thus
> >>> it would take 217,000 of these CPU chips to equate to
> >>> a human
> >>> brain.
> >>>
> >>> The most powerful computer in the world (Blue Gene-L)
> >>> has
> >>> 40% fewer CPU chips, and they are each 39% as powerful
> >>> as the
> >>> Athlon above, for a total of about 1/4 of the required
> >>> power.
> >>>
> >>> So the failure of AI to date can be explained by the
> >>> lack of
> >>> adequate hardware.
> >>>
> >>> Special purpose AI accelerator chips, similar to
> >>> graphics
> >>> accelerator ships, may buy you a factor of
> >>> 10 improvement. Clever programming may buy you
> >>> another
> >>> factor of 10, and the expected improvement in
> >>> computers
> >>> in the next 5 years will get you another factor of 5.
> >>>
> >>> This would bring the number of blade servers required
> >>> down
> >>> to ~430, which is a reasonably small number. So an
> >>> investment
> >>> in accelerator chip design and AI programming, coupled
> >>> with
> >>> the expected improvement in computers overall, could
> >>> yield
> >>> true AI in 5 years.
> >>>
> >>> DRN (I've previously signed my messages 'Daniel', but
> >>> Daniel Radetsky signs his messages the same way. To avoid confusion
> >>> I'm now using the initials of my
> >>> historical
> >>> re-enactment persona 'Daniel of Raven's Nest', which
> >>> is
> >>> where my email address comes from. Dani Eder is my
> >>> real
> >>> world name)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> __________________________________________________
> >>> Do You Yahoo!?
> >>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> >>> http://mail.yahoo.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT