From: Colin Hales (colin@versalog.com.au)
Date: Fri Apr 12 2002 - 21:27:22 MDT
I've been following this thread with interest. Here's another link to a
group that appeared to get all enthused
http://www.cybernetics.demon.co.uk/VBM.html and then did a few sums. They
concluded that they'd need 700 PCs to implement a human brain that operated
at 1/5000th the speed of a human. After that not much seems to have
happened. It looks like they were overwhelmed.
My own feeling is that the massive interconnectedess (large associative
memories resonating with each other) and learning needs preclude any
realistic widely-distributed WWW type mind (the MURG Amygdala may work, but
it's not doing much cognition) - at least as far as things go at the moment.
If you want to implement a mind then I think it may have to be a monolith at
first.
Risks from AI would stem from a monolithic AI sequestering distributed
resources to embark on self enhancement. Eg someone has a prototype,
non-working nano-assembler shared on the WEB for group research reasons. The
AI uses backgrounded modelling a la folding@home on a million PCs to fix it
up and then uses it to remake itself by pretending to be a human to the
local guy with the machine. Damn wicked these AIs!
Back in the real world - In really don't think any standard CPU will do it.
Being an electrical/electronic Engineer, I see maybe a special board using
supervised FPGAs in dozens of 2000mm high, 19" racks filling rooms initially
(I think, If my calcs are right), connected in as massively parallel way as
possible. One can emulate and debug the boards on a PC, but ultimately it
becomes a hardwired monolith. If desktop PCs evolved from that massive valve
based 'ENIAC' or was it 'UNIVAC' (?) back in the 50's, this FPGA based mind
is 1950's version of a future desktop version that would probably arrive
very much sooner.
Well that's where my brain is at on the issue, FWIW.
cheers
Colin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:28 MST