[ExI] Oxford scientists edge toward quantum PC with 10b qubits

[Richard Loosemore]

Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 08:18:46AM -0500, Richard Loosemore wrote:
>> John Grigg wrote:
>>> Does this mean we are possibly moving ahead of schedule toward AGI?
>>>
>>> http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/01/21/oxford.u.makes.headway.toward.quantum.computer/
>> The answer to your question is NO.
>>
>> Getting toward AGI is a question of the theory, and the software.
> 
> Do you need theory for your brain's operation in order to
> operate it? What kind of software are you running right now,
> and where exactly is it separate from hardware? Where is
> the magical time period where state becomes embodied as
> permanent structure?

You are referring to the idea that building an AGI is about "simply" 
duplicating the human brain?  And that therefore the main obstacle is 
having the hardware to do that?

This is an approach that might be called "blind replication".  Copying 
without understanding.

I tried to do that once, when I was a kid.  I built an electronic 
circuit using a published design, but with no clue how the components 
worked, or how the system functioned.

It turned out that there was one small problem, somewhere in my 
implementation.  Probably just the one.  And so the circuit didn't work. 
  And since I was blind to the functionality, there was absolutely 
nothing I could do about it.  I had no idea where to look to fix the 
problem.

To do AGI you need to understand what you are building.  The idea of 
successfully replicating a system as fantastically complex as the human 
brain, without first sorting out the FUNCTIONALITY -- i.e. the software 
-- is a hollow dream.

(Not to mention that virtually nobody in the AGI community is actually 
trying to do that right now.  WBE is done by neuroscientists who seem 
not to have thought about these issues much, and they don't call what 
they do "AGO")



>> The relevance of hardware advances like this is completely unknown until  
>> a working design can be supplied.
> 
> If you try to track what a given piece of neocortex is doing
> in current hardware you will realize that you need a lot of 
> crunch.

Track what the neocortex is doing?  I am doing that.  That is my 
research.... except that I am doing it at the high-level, functional 
level.  What I am trying to do is understand how the neocortex works, 
not how the signals are chasing each other around.  Those are two 
different things, like the difference between electronic engineering and 
software engineering.

And, so far, it looks as though the cortex may be playing a functional 
role that can be implemented with a few orders of magnitude less 
hardware than the brain uses.

>> We are a long way away from AGI, unless people start to wake up to the  
>> farcical state of affairs in artificial intelligence at the moment.
> 
> Finally something we can agree on.

Well, we agree on this (as you probably know) for completely different 
reasons.

At least I think we do.  If you are saying this because you agree with 
the critique in my complex systems paper, I will be a pleasantly 
surprised person today.


Richard Loosemore