Re: Artificial life likely in 3 to 10 years

DK wrote:
Tim Tyler <seemysig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
DK wrote:
Tim Tyler <seemysig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'm taking it for granted that machine intelligence will
outstrip human intelligence within 50 years. It looks
like the hardware capabilities will be there - in $500
hardware - within 20 years.

LOL.

Moravec puts current $1000 computer/brain capacity about level
with a lizard:

[...]

http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/book97/ch3/power.150.jpg

Works now. We obviously have very little common ground here.

Whoever are people producing these graphs, they are quite
obviously people who have next to zero knowledge of biology.
99% of biochemists/cell biologists/physiologists are likely to just
laugh at it and never take it seriously.

I certainly can't take it seriously. Fists, any of such extrapolations
presume that we know how brain functions and what it takes for it
to function. The truth is: WE HAVE NO CLUE. [...]

Moravec bases his estimate on the functional properties of
retinal cells. There is a sketch of the calculation here:

``Each of the million ganglion-cell axons carries signals from
a particular patch of image, representing the differences in
light intensity between adjacent regions and from one time to
the next--edge and motion detections that are useful also in
robot vision. Overall, the retina seems to resolve about one
million distinct regions in the visual field and to follow
change up to about ten frames per second. Fed a video image
with similar resolution, it takes a robot vision program about
100 computer operations to produce a single edge or motion
detection, thus 100 million operations to match a whole
"frame" of optic nerve output, and 1,000 MIPS--the power
of a small supercomputer--to equal the retina's ten frames
per second.

If the retina is worth 1,000 MIPS, what about the whole brain,
whose larger neurons are 1,000 times as numerous, but occupy
100,000 times the volume? Multiplying the retina's computation
by a compromise brain/retina ratio of 10,000 yields a rough
brain equivalent of 10 million MIPS--like a million 1997
robot computers, or 100 of the biggest supercomputers.
Conversely a 10 MIPS robot--like most still in use--has
the mental power of a million-neuron bee. An advanced
experimental robot, with 100 MIPS, matches the brain of
a very small fish. The Figure 2 rates other entities.''

http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/general.articles/1997/970128.nosense.html


Of course, this is just an estimate. If Moore's law continues
to hold, for each factor of two is is out by, you need to add or
subtract 18 months. Say, if you think it is out by a factor
of 1000, that would correspond to a difference of about 15 years.

It is widely claimed that the hardware development is not
the limiting factor in creating smart machines - and that
the main problems are with software. I'm inclined to agree:
when the latest video-game system has more processor power
than the human brain, it will not signify the moment when
machine intelligence matches ours - that point will still
be far off.

Computer Go, provides a better yardstick, IMO:

"To Test a Powerful Computer, Play an Ancient Game"

- http://www.ishipress.com/times-go.htm

FWIW, my predictions for progress in computer go are
shodan: 2020, champion: 2050.

I.e. I'm suggesting that a human will still be world-champion of
this highly-intellectual game for another 42 years! In computer
science, that is a long, *long* time. Think about where
computers were in 1966. The effects of that much exponential
progress all over again are pretty mind-boggling to contemplate.

Second, when such extrapolations include claims of Apple II having
more "processing power" than bacterial cell (whatever it means in
this context ... "intelligence"???), NO ONE who has remotest idea of
how complex and completely unpredictable a single cell can be, can
look at them at anything but crazed fantasies.

My council would be to ignore the 'bacterial cell' and 'manual
calculation' entries. They look as though they are there to
fill out the calibration of that axis to me.

We are still at a level where we cannot predict with more than 50/50
probability the consequences of a single change in a single protein
even when we know 3D structure of this protein! Comparing this
to an Apple II is a travesty of a science. Anyone doing it is a
charlatan.

Moravec's calculation is based on the functional capabilities
of brain cells. How much "computation" a folding protein does
is not really a relevant issue.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@xxxxxxxxxxx Remove lock to reply.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: artificial intelligence
    ... IS the neural activity. ... brain via your visual system. ... brain on the basis of temporal correlation of sensory data events. ... physical sense of their brain hardware. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Brain Dead People
    ... within the individual cell, the vast amount of information that is ... factories", the total ... brain goes into dust and does not get recycled. ... designer. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Strong AI Thesis (No Chinese room, I promise)
    ... My objection was that you are using the word "existence" differently from ... What also exists is millions of other brains that have hardware similar to ... At the next level of abstraction, what exists is hardware in your brain, ... limiting your vocabulary to only transistors. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Havent done anything real with OOP yet.
    ... and close enough to the original simulation to be useful. ... > That is, each cell interacts with nearest neighbors attached on the faces, ... OOA modeling can be used for hardware design. ... > Forget about timer objects and accumulators, ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Havent done anything real with OOP yet.
    ... >OOA modeling can be used for hardware design. ... >superficially true enough to support hardware simulation, ... >until the last cell has completed its computation. ... sort of rigamarole. ...
    (comp.object)