The brain's neural net architecture is massively parallel. It has tens of billions of parallel processors (neurons). It has hundreds of trillions of interconnects (synapses). It does what it does without the issue you discuss creating much of a problem on many tasks. Of course, the brain frequently makes mistakes. But evolution has shown that reaction speed is often more important that always being correct.
There is a good chance we will be able to build computers having many of these beneficial properties of the brain within 5 to 15 years. On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 5:32 PM, EdFromNH . <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Yes - "present-day computers are orders of magnitude too slow to do >> anything useful" as the computational architecture for an AGI. >> > > There is a possibility that the methods that we come up with would be too > slow only because there is something about them which is inherently tends > to be exponentially complex. That is the problem that occurs when possible > results have to be recursively improved on according to information that > come from different sources to produce comparisons. The problem is that the > source of knowledge is going to be distributed so if a recursive > improvement on some initial guesses is going to be dependent on > examining the different ways of interpreting a situation then the numerous > ambiguity-like possibilities that have to be checked can require > exponential number of steps. Every time you try to improve a response you > add more components of knowledge into the problem. > Jim Bromer > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 5:32 PM, EdFromNH . <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Steve, >> >> Yes - "present-day computers are orders of magnitude too slow to do >> anything useful" as the computational architecture for an AGI. >> >> For 4 decades I have pissed people off in the AI community who were >> saying that software, not hardware was the problem by saying the following >> >> "I have a relatively simple thesis: there's no reason to believe an AI >> could have approximately the human-like intelligence of a person unless it >> had within several magnitudes the computational capacity of the human brain >> as measured by the metrics at which the human brain currently exceeds >> computers by many orders of magnitude." >> >> >> I had one AI programmer get hostile when I said that. Another time, I >> told one of the major speakers at the 1997 AAAI Conference that -- until we >> had computers millions of times more powerful than that most of the AI >> community could then get their hands on -- AIs would not be able to think >> like humans. He response was "I have no idea what I could do useful with a >> computer a million times more powerful that I currently have." To which I >> responding, in my mind, "that only because you and the leadership in the AI >> community hasn't thought much about it." >> >> I have been thinking about what I could do with machines having trillions >> of bytes of memory and many billions of processing elements ever since I >> took my year-long independent study my senior year at college reading a >> long list of books and articles written for me by Marvin Minsky. I was >> particularly influenced by Minksy brief K-Line Theory paper. (Although Deb >> Roy of MIT's Speechome project told me that K-line was first developed by >> someone other than Minsky.) >> >> So yes, no even remotely human-like AGIs can be built without what very >> expensive hardware. That's why I am spending much of my time trying to >> understand the architecture of the brain, because it is the "GI" that AGI >> wants to at least match. I am quite confident that we will be able to make >> relatively inexpensive (for the cost of a premium automobile) AGI brains in >> 5 to 15 years using neuromorphic architectures that substantially match >> virtually all human cognitive capabilities, and exceed humans in many >> capabilities by thousands or millions of times. >> >> Ed Porter >> >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Steve Richfield < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Colin, >>> >>> You'll be back, when you discover that present-day computers are orders >>> of magnitude too slow to do anything useful. >>> >>> Steve >>> =========== >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Colin Hales <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi AGI folk, >>>> >>>> Following that flurry of activity (IGI etc) earlier this year I became >>>> bogged down in the final stages of a family matter involving an unresolved >>>> Will. That matter has now been put to bed. It took 8 months all up and was >>>> very unpleasant. >>>> >>>> Having returned to see what the personal AGI detritus looked like I >>>> reviewed where I am and decided to act. Bottom line: I have turned the >>>> garage into a robotics AGI lab from which this email is being written. That >>>> took another huge effort. >>>> >>>> I have written up the natural-AGI, analytic-AGI, synthetic-AGI 1950s >>>> science cockup and am looking at publishing it. I expect to be ignored. I >>>> am so over all the BS related to the science. Frankly the journal system >>>> can shove it. Real science left the building long ago. I don't need to >>>> publish to make the damned robots. I plan to get the young involved and let >>>> them run with it. I seem to have reached the 60 year-old curmudgeon stage >>>> and am not taking prisoners. >>>> >>>> I really appreciated all the enthusiasm over the IGI and am sorry but I >>>> cannot play. The one thing it told me is that I think the synthetic-AGI >>>> approach's time has come after 65 years in hiatus. Life's too short to >>>> spend any more time on endless gabfests and making clubhouses and their >>>> acolytry ... When I am done, if it works, the robots will demonstrate >>>> themselves. If they don't well screw it. I tried. >>>> >>>> So I am going off the radar (intermittent passive list lurking maybe >>>> forever) except for a shop-front www.bionicbrain.info blog series to >>>> keep the end-game branding active for funding purposes. If I am visibly >>>> back, ever, it will be in the company of some kind of shambolic bespoke >>>> robot(s) with a distributed synthetic-AGI brain festooned all over them. It >>>> will have taught itself everything it knows and there won't be a line of >>>> code in it that relates to its intelligence or its knowledge. That's what a >>>> real AGI looks like. Physics. >>>> >>>> I hope that the robots will attract the funding needed to transform >>>> them beyond a garage hack. Who knows? >>>> >>>> So until then ... all the best ... >>>> >>>> cheers >>>> colin >>>> >>>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | >>>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a >>> six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back >>> full employment. >>> >>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/8630185-a57a74e1> | >>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-653794b5> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/8630185-a57a74e1> | Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
