I'm going to declare ALL theoretical hardware discussion offtopic UNLESS
you can provide a piece of code and specifiy what speedup you require in
order for it to produce practical results over some readily available
baseline.
--
Please report bounces from this address to a...@numentics.com
Powe
Not all that coy or secretive… published a detailed whitepaper for our
(aborted) token sale, dozens of articles and videos, and benchmark test
published in various places including https://www.facebook.com/groups/RealAGI/
From: Linas Vepstas
Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2019 8:17 PM
To: AGI
Perhaps it's because, for its exponential complexity, agi defies theoretical
science. If no executable, framework of computational intelligence exists,
what's the use of being able to run at the speed of light?
Many commentators here agreed (over time) how agi development requires a
radically-d
Where is the 'Like' button when you need it?
From: pe...@optimal.org
Sent: Monday, 04 February 2019 1:28 AM
To: 'AGI'
Subject: RE: [agi] The future of AGI
I’m not that pessimistic at all.
Our own AGI project has made steady progress over the past 17 years in
I have no clue what Peter is actually thinking because he's coy and
secretive. But I'm not pessimistic. I'm just perplexed why no one ever
seems to try the obvious things. Or why I can never seem to explain obvious
things to anyone and have them understand it. I am quite certain that one
can do b
Copying a bit requires deleting the old value. So Landauer's limit applies.
Reversible computing is free but really isn't useful for AGI. The brain is
not a quantum computer. Training a neural network performs irreversible
state changes.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 4:22 PM TimTyler On 2019-02-03 10:19:
I’m not that pessimistic at all.
Our own AGI project has made steady progress over the past 17 years in spite of
only spending about $10 million – about 150 man-years of focused effort. We’ve
managed to successfully commercialize an early version of our proto-AGI engine
in a company that no
But there is this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_of_computation
(Excluding quantum computation)
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 22:23, TimTyler wrote:
> On 2019-02-03 10:19:AM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
>
> > The problem is power consumption. Mechanical adding machines are older
> > than vacuum tubes an
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 3:22 PM TimTyler wrote:
>
> part of the interest in reversible computation.
>
FYI, in a certain sense, quantum is "reversible"; see "two state-vector
formalism" for the tip of the iceberg. A lot (most? all?) quantum
"paradoxes" have to do with the fact that it "seems like"
On 2019-02-03 10:19:AM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
The problem is power consumption. Mechanical adding machines are older
than vacuum tubes and would have very low power consumption if we
could shrink them to molecular size.
Copying bits in DNA, RNA, and protein costs less than a millionth as
much
The problem is power consumption. Mechanical adding machines are older than
vacuum tubes and would have very low power consumption if we could shrink
them to molecular size.
Copying bits in DNA, RNA, and protein costs less than a millionth as much
energy as copying bits in RAM. The human body tran
11 matches
Mail list logo
