Matt, A couple of comments your post that I generally agree with...
On 4/19/08, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 90% of which are glial cells and not (technically) neurons at all, > though > > all we care about is whether or not they compute. > > My understanding is they carry passive signals. The last I heard, the ONLY thing that they know for sure is that when they impale them with an electrode, they only see slowly changing signals and nothing resembling bistable, spikes, etc. Unknown is whether they CAN change rapidly - or perhaps rare rapid changes are their important function?! Theories abound for glial cells, e.g. the one advanced ~4 years ago in Scientific American, where the author asserted that they assisted in the programming of synapses. > Moore's law presumed a relatively unchanging architecture and rapidly > > advancing fabrication. This has broken down, now that transistors can > easily > > be made SO small that the electrons jump right over the gates. Sure > there > > will be further developments, e.g. multi-layer, but the easy stuff that > > Moore's law was build on is now GONE. > > Actually Moore's law holds pretty well back to about 1900 if you consider > the > computing power of mechanical adding machines. (I believe Kurzweil > studied > this). Moore's law is about the cost of computing, not the size of > transistors. But, until they figure out something besides transistors to make computers from, Moore's law has worked in recent decades via transistor shrinkage, thereby making them cheaper. My point is that they can't shrink any more, so they aren't going to get any cheaper, except via slow improvements in methods of manufacturing the same (and not smaller/faster) parts. > The proposed architecture that Josh and I have been discussing could bring > > this to the market for about the same cost as a PC in a couple of years > - > > with adequate funding. > > I've heard that before. NOT using the SAME fabrication equipment! Other proposals involved new proposed fabrication technologies. > 2. Some rich benefactor will step forward and make this happen over the > > loud objections of millions of devoutly religious. > > Nobody has that much money. AGI will happen because nobody wants to work > for > somebody else. While I agree with you regarding AGI, there are several people who could easily afford the 10K processor, or a knowledge-based Internet, e.g. Dr. Eliza. These appear to both be necessary as underlying tools to make AGI really work, and should both return a really quick profit - like in the first year or two. Steve Richfield ------------------------------------------- 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=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
