(March 28, 2016 at 12:50 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Here's where we're at now:
http://www.livescience.com/42561-superco...ivity.html
The article refers to a supercomputer taking 40 minutes to model one second of human brain activity. Let's oversimplify, and say that means a human brain is 1600 times more 'powerful' than the supercomputer. The 'power' of a supercomputer will have to doubled about 10 or 11 times for it to be 'powerful' enough to simulate human brain activity in real time. If, and I concede that's a big if, Moore's Law in its general sense holds for another 17 years; that's when we can expect a super computer to be capable of that. And it (if ML holds) be compressed to desktop within another 10 years, So, if everything holds (which it sooner or later won't), roughly speaking, desktop AI as 'powerful' as a human brain in about 20 years. I'll be in my mid-seventies by then if I make it that long, but there's a chance I can have a very good simulation of a person for company then.
And that's not even taking into account the many orders of magnitude more processing power required for artificial evolution, or whatever form of parameter optimisation you want to use if you want to create your own version.
Also that model of a human brain would be using simplistic models of neurons. It has to because we can't measure a whole brain that extensively to know the location and state of every thing that can possibly compute in the brain.
And if you somehow did all that you'd just end up with a digital version of a real brain. We'd still need to try to figure out how it works. Even evolving a simple neural network or circuit diagram can take several months to figure out what's happening. I remember spending two weeks crippling a simple three layer biologically plausible neural network and wondering why it kept working, albeit at a lesser performance.
