Strongly disagree. Computational neuroscience is moving as fast as any field of science has ever moved. Computer hardware is improving as fast as any field of technology has ever improved.
I would be EXTREMELY surprised if neuron-level simulation were necessary to get human-level intelligence. With reasonable algorithmic optimization, and a few tricks our hardware can do the brain can't (e.g. store sensory experience verbatim and review it as often as necessary into learning algorithms) we should be able to knock 3 orders of magnitude or so off the pure-neuro HEPP estimate -- which puts us at ten high-end graphics cards, e.g. less than the price of a car. (or just wait till 2015 and get one high-end PC). Figuring out the algorithms is the ONLY thing standing between us and AI. Josh On Tuesday 03 June 2008 12:16:54 pm, Steve Richfield wrote: > ... for the lack of a few million dollars, both computer science > and neuroscience are stymied in the same respective holes that they have > been in for most of the last 40 years. > ... > Meanwhile, drug companies are redirecting ~100% of medical research funding > into molecular biology, nearly all of which leads nowhere. > > The present situation appears to be entirely too stable. There seems to be > no visible hope past this, short of some rich person throwing a lot of money > at it - and they are all too busy to keep up on forums like this one. > > Are we on the same page here? ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
