I've got a sawbuck in my pocket that says that you are seriously underestimating the capacity of the human mind.
In fact, its questionable whether you can emulate a mouse brain adequately with that amount of power. I also think you guys are seriously underestimating the memory capacity of the human mind. Of course, I view the fundamental problem with your analysis as the mistaken assumption that mind=brain. There's a lot of anecdotal evidence that indicates the error in this line of thinking, and I can say that I personally have resolved that mind does not indeed equal brain. If you ask me to prove it, I cannot...But I would think with the advent of quantum physics and the EPR experiments that even the hard science folks would begin to see that there are a lot of strange happenings going on in this universe of ours that we don't begin to understand intellectually. I suggest a reading of The Holographic Universe, if you get a chance. I have only perused it myself, but I support the concepts that it conveys. Good luck with your work! Kevin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Grimes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:55 PM Subject: Re: [agi] How wrong are these numbers? > Ben Goertzel wrote: > > The next question is: What's your corresponding estimate of processing > > power? > > Thanks for the prompt. > > Lets use the number 2^30 for the size of the memory which will require > 25 operations for each 32 bit word. > > 2^30 bytes == 2^28 words. > > We are going to cycle the thing at the 30hz rate of the human EEG so the > memory throughput required for the cortex part of the application > (ignoring the critical nuclei and cerebellum) will be > > 30*2^28 > 15*2^30 bytes/second total, 15GB/sec. (this is the most > critical number). > > A pair of servers with 8gb/sec throughput should be plenty and preserve > the native organization as well... > > Now the CPU: We want to do roughly 20 operations to each of 2^28 words > every 30 seconds. > > 20*30*2^28 > 75*2^31 > ~160 GHZ. (raw) Each server is responsible for > 80. Split 16 ways, the load comes to 5ghz each. If we use a more > conservative estimate of the typical EEG rate, say 15 hz, the load for > each processor comes to 2.5 ghz... (splitting into more servers will > probably not be practical due to network constraints). > > We could buy this for about $500,000. > > I would guess the cost to devel the hardware to emulate the varrious > nucleii, (many of which do nothing more than a few simple vector > operations), would probably add about $150k for custom cards (probably > several iterations of such.) > > To make a meta-notation here, I am exploring this path towards AI > because it is closer to a "sure fire" thing compared to a more radical > idea I have that I hope to see implemented in the next generation. This > more radical approach has some serious problems which may not be > resolvable. > > > To emulate the massively parallel "information update rate" of the > > brain on N bits of memory, how many commodity PC processors are > > required per GB of RAM? > > Well in the above I only mentioned 1GB total memory. However there is > almost certainly going to be an overhead above that gb... I invite the > reader to factor in a sensable overhead ratio (for pointers and misc > data structures) to the numbers above... > > -- > pain (n): see Linux. > http://users.rcn.com/alangrimes/ > > ------- > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, > please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
