On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Alan Grimes <[email protected]> wrote: > Why are you so fixated with this 10^10 number??? > > How about you worry about 10^0 or 10^1 first???
It is the population of the world, or more precisely, the working population, that is of interest if we wish to replace all human labor with machines. AGI would do that, right? Creating a single human level AGI is certainly less expensive. I estimate something like 100M lines of code on a 10 petaflop, 1 petabyte machine. But what would you do with it? It's too expensive to use it to replace a human worker. For one thing, just the electricity to run it is $1000 per hour. Most everyone wants to work on the software. For a single AGI, it's the most expensive part. Then once it's written, you can make unlimited copies. You'll be an instant quadrillionaire, except for the small detail that supercomputers aren't cheap. What we really need is a fundamentally new hardware design. Silicon won't work. You can't make transistors smaller than atoms, which is what you would need to do to reduce the power consumption to the 25 watts that your brain uses. -- -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
