Ed, <- snip -> 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.
Y'know, I once believed much the same, but experience has taught me better. In 1980 I projected that by 2000 that it would be possible to purchase a computer to simulate a person, neuron by neuron, synapse by synapse, in real time for ~$5K. Then, when this didn't happen, I CAREFULLY analyzed why. Nearly all of my error was in predicting major advances in architecture that just didn't happen. To make my point I looked at presently known architectural advances overlaid on 2000 fab methods, and it comes pretty close. I wrote a paper about what it would take that I labeled *The Itanium Effect* without reference to comparing computational abilities to humans. This would provide ~2 orders of magnitude in performance on PRESENT fabs, but MUCH more on 2000 fabs. Still, there was a piece missing, so... My 1980 calculations included the presumption that neurons would be computed on an as-needed basis rather than being constantly recomputed, which is worth ~4 orders of magnitude. Of course the challenge is in figuring out when re-computation is needed without eating up the benefits. Then I wrote DrEliza.com and ran into a parallel problem, which I solved in a recently-issued patent discussed earlier on this forum. The method involved bottom-level triggering that looks transportable to neuromorphic methods. I can envision a new op-code that would seem do this. So, there seems to be a half dozen orders of magnitude available in KNOWN approaches - yet NOTHING is happening "on the ground". Why? I think (but am not sure) I understand. Many of these issues are SUBTLE, SO subtle that people on this forum are now writing code that absolutely can NOT work (in real time) despite having discussed these issues here. The few people who grok these issues simply disappear from this forum because they can't see making anything work in the present environment. In a real sense the AGI Rapture has already happened, and those who grok its likely construction have already "risen" above this forum, leaving those who just can't get it, and a few of us "in betweeners" who weren't good enough to rise, to try to convince the Left Behind of the nature of the situation. Meanwhile, manufacturers see NO market for such hardware, especially no market to support the ~half-billion dollars it would take to bring such a processor to market. This field is DEAD DEAD DEAD until someone with a LOT of money WAKES UP. No corporation can take this step because they are structurally incapable to making such giant leaps into marketing terra incognita. So, don't expect to see this in another 15 years UNLESS someone wakes up. It hasn't happened yet, and I don't see it happening in the future. Something happens to people when they get a LOT of money. They think the limits to technology they see are there to stay. They lose their sense of futurism. The closest "near miss" seems to be Paul Allen, who is pumping a LOT of money into scanning brains, but at too low of a resolution to be worth anything for our purposes. He could pump some of that money into microscope development, but instead apparently accepts the crap that he can purchase. What is needed here is a route past the above described roadblock. The first step would seem to be to outline the possible routes. Does anyone here see a possible route past this roadblock? Steve ------------------------------------------- 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
