Re:Artificial Intelligence Still Isn’t All That Smart
by bachbach on Monday August 20, 2018 @07:30PM
(#17805128)
I thought I'd scribble on the back of the envelope.
Henry Markram, a neuroscience person with a desire to emulate the human brain believes it takes 1 exaflop. It's a start.
Existing supercomputers reach 50 petaflops. 50 billion petaflops is 50 million exaflops.
Is this 50 million brain EM moments?
It's possible it was in the ballpark of a human brain emulation although I strongly suspect a fair comparison isn't easily comprehensible.
> I agree that there are alot of very subtle, but fundamental mistakes and omissions in both the design and combinations of current generation intelligence algorithms that are impeding a viable path toward general intelligence
I think that is true of specialized intelligence, and that zero progress of any sort has been made on AGI. I don't mind being wrong if you know of primitive examples that qualify.
It is unclear how to begin. Maybe rehearsing something like real biological evolution.
> , if all we care about is dramatically increasing the efficiency of solving problems humans care about, this totally isn't a problem, because we apparently don't need general intelligence to do that.
Daniel Dennett makes this point philosophically in a video I watched yesterday. Other people have made the observation that we're already surrounded by AGIs in the form human society based collective intelligences we know well.
Henry Markram, a neuroscience person with a desire to emulate the human brain believes it takes 1 exaflop. It's a start.
Existing supercomputers reach 50 petaflops. 50 billion petaflops is 50 million exaflops.
Is this 50 million brain EM moments?
It's possible it was in the ballpark of a human brain emulation although I strongly suspect a fair comparison isn't easily comprehensible.
> I agree that there are alot of very subtle, but fundamental mistakes and omissions in both the design and combinations of current generation intelligence algorithms that are impeding a viable path toward general intelligence
I think that is true of specialized intelligence, and that zero progress of any sort has been made on AGI. I don't mind being wrong if you know of primitive examples that qualify.
It is unclear how to begin. Maybe rehearsing something like real biological evolution.
> , if all we care about is dramatically increasing the efficiency of solving problems humans care about, this totally isn't a problem, because we apparently don't need general intelligence to do that.
Daniel Dennett makes this point philosophically in a video I watched yesterday. Other people have made the observation that we're already surrounded by AGIs in the form human society based collective intelligences we know well.