<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:large">And I would bet money that the artificial neurons in AlphaGo's brain are organized in a more efficient less buggy way than the neurons in our brain are. john clark</span><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif"><font size="4">I would like to know the basis of this statement.</font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif"><font size="4"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif"><font size="4">One thing not being considered is that human brains do a lot more than process incoming data. A large part of our brains are given over to the internal workings of the body - the autonomic nervous system. The large cerebellum - much larger in birds - is wasted space for thinking of intellectual tasks (it's for motor control and balance). Our cortex is most of our brain but a lot of it is given over to sensory and motor functions. Maybe we should count only the number of neurons in the prefrontal cortex. AIs can focus all their power into thinking.</font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif"><font size="4"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif"><font size="4">Another factor is nearly completely unknown - just what the glial cells are doing. They outnumber neurons. They form the blood-brain barrier and feed the neurons. Yet from the books I have read it would not surprise me if they were involved in cognitive processes.</font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif"><font size="4"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif"><font size="4">bill w</font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif"><font size="4"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif"><font size="4"><br></font></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 7:13 PM John Clark <<a href="mailto:johnkclark@gmail.com">johnkclark@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 3:18 PM Stuart LaForge <<a href="mailto:avant@sollegro.com" target="_blank">avant@sollegro.com</a>> wrote:</span><br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br></div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">Hi Stuart, thanks for an absolutely first rate post, it was detailed yet clear. Really really good.</font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4"><br></font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span><i>The hilarious irony of the situation is that if my theory is correct, then a human brain has to subconsciously perform tensor analysis in order to reach the conclusion that it is lousy at math.</i></blockquote><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">Damn, I wish I'd said that!</font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>In other words, in terms of total number of neurons, the <br>
human brain is some 4 million times larger than AlphaGo's. In terms of <br>
synapses it is likewise on order 10^6 times smaller than the human <br>
brain.</i><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><font size="4"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"></font>I doubt a computer would need a million times more synapses to beat us at all intellectual tasks, for one thing the average informational signal in our brain moves about as fast as a car does on a turnpike while the informational signal in a computer moves at close to the speed of light. And I would bet money that the artificial neurons in AlphaGo's brain are organized in a more efficient less buggy way than the neurons in our brain are.</font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><br></span></div><font size="4">A raven's brain is only about 17 cubic centimeters, a chimpanzees brain is over 400, and yet a raven is about as smart as a chimp. And the African Grey Parrot has demonstrated an understanding of human language at least as deep as that of a chimpanzee and probably deeper, this despite the fact that the chimp's brain is about 25 times as large. I suppose that when there was evolutionary pressure to become smarter a flying creature couldn't just develop a bigger, heavier more energy hogging brain; instead of the brute force approach it had to organize the small light brain it already had in more efficient ways. Our brains are about 1400 cm, but I'll bet centimeter by centimeter ravens are smarter than we are. Being called a birdbrain may not be an insult after all. For this reason I believe if one wishes to study the nature of intelligence then crows and ravens would be ideal candidates, compared with other animals their brains would be more elegantly designed and have less spaghetti code and hard to understand kludges.</font><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><i>
<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>Taking the average of the given range of 5 to 45 years, is 25 years. <br>
But this assumes that Moore's law continues unabated.</i></blockquote><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">I would be surprised if it happened in less than 10 years and equally surprised if it didn't happen until after 2100, but it is the nature of a singularity to be surprised.</font></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>On the other hand, the emergence of quantum computing stands to disrupt everything, </i><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"></font><font size="4">There are a number of different approaches to quantum computing and lots of companies are starting to put some real money into it, but Microsoft (of all people!) is going with a high risk high reward strategy. Microsoft is trying to use Majorana Fermions to build a Topological Quantum Computer. It may not work at all but if it does they'll quickly blow everybody else in the field out of the water. They probably won't but Microsoft could surprise us.</font></div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><i>
<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>Sorry, I couldn't be more precise in my estimates but to quote Yoda, <br>
"Difficult to see; Always in motion is the future."</i><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">Predicting is hard, especially the future. </font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">John K Clark</font></div></div><br>
</div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>