Warren Smith recently pointed out that if you regard a CMOS transistor
pair as roughly comparable to a synapse, and assume rather generously
that synapses can continuously operate at 400 Hz, a 3.6 GHz Xeon with
286E6 transistors has processing power .5 X 3.6 X 286 X E(9+6)=5.1 E17
whereas a human
Hi,
On a related subject, I argued in What is Thought? that the hard
problem was not processor speed for running the AI, but coding the
software,
This is definitely true.
However, processor speed for research is often a significant issue.
With faster processors, it would be quicker to run
What is the CPU processing needed for AGI?
Dan Goe
From : Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To : agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject : Re: [agi] Processing speed for core intelligence in human
brain
Date : Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:14:57 -0400
Hi,
On a
If somebody out there has some strong reason why the above is
misguided, I'd be interested in hearing it.
VERY few Xeon transistors are used per clock tick. Many, many, MANY more
brain synapses are firing at a time.
- Original Message -
From: Eric Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
On a related subject, I argued in What is Thought? that the hard
problem was not processor speed for running the AI, but coding the
Trust me, the speed is. Your biggest problem is memory bandwidth,
actually.
I agree. As I said a couple of days ago, AGI is going to require a massive
amount
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Hi,
On a related subject, I argued in What is Thought? that the hard
problem was not processor speed for running the AI, but coding the
software,
This is definitely true.
Agreed.
However, Warren has recently done some digging
on the subject, and come up with what
Eric Baum wrote:
These matters are discussed in more detail in What is Thought?,
particularly the later chapters.
You may assume I've read it.
Eliezer,
I enjoyed Levels of Organization in General Intelligence. I very
much agree that there must be depth and complexity in the
computation.
Eugen Groan. The whole network computes. The synapse is just an
Eugen element. Also: you're missing on connectivity,
Eugen reconfigurability, synapse type and strength issues.
I'll definitely grant you reconfigurability. Might be fairer
to compare to a programmable array.
On a related
How many Xeon transistors per clock tick? Any idea?
I recall estimating .001 of neurons were firing at any given time
(although I no longer recall how I reached that rough guesstimate.)
And remember, the Xeon has a big speed factor.
The Xeon speed factor is just less than 1E7.
Using your
Eugen Trust me, the speed is. Your biggest problem is memory
Eugen bandwidth, actually.
Well, on this we differ. I can appreciate how you might think memory
bandwidth was important for some tasks, although I don't, but
I'm curious why you think its important for planning problems like
Sokoban or
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 02:50:23PM -0400, Eric Baum wrote:
Eugen Groan. The whole network computes. The synapse is just an
Eugen element. Also: you're missing on connectivity,
Eugen reconfigurability, synapse type and strength issues.
I'll definitely grant you reconfigurability. Might be
http://news.com.com/Getting+machines+to+think+like+us/2008-11394_3-6090207.html?tag=nefd.lede
Some interesting QA in the interview:
*. What would be the biggest achievements in the last 50 years? Or how
much of the original goals were accomplished?
McCarthy: Well, we don't have human-level
Try calculating instead the incoming bits/second stored...now calculate
the required storage space.
When you do that the computer starts looking much less
competitive...today. Calculate the space required to store, without
definitions or attached meanings, all the words in the English
language.
Eliezer It should be emphasized that I wrote LOGI in 2002;
Didn't know that. Are the rest of the papers in that 2005 book as old?
Eliezer Nonetheless, calling something complex doesn't explain it.
Methinks you protest too much, although I take the point. But I did
like the presentation--
14 matches
Mail list logo
