From: Charles Hixson (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Nov 24 2009 - 10:23:11 MST
Different people have different goals. The group doesn't have a unified
goal. (This is the SL4 list, not the AGI list, but even on that list
different people have different goals.)
Even when the goal is agreed to be a computer based intelligence that's
generally more capable than are humans, the details of the goal aren't
agreed on. Only some of the approaches involve simulating a human
brain, and, IMHO, those are some of the ones further from realization.
So your question doesn't have an answer.
Matt Paul wrote:
> Ok, this is probably gonna get me banned...
> I've been following SL4 for a while now. The discussions are
> certainly intellectually stimulating in a "university" sense, but what
> I still don't get is what exactly the perceived value of the AI you
> guys discuss is beyond normal scientific desire to understand. I don't
> see the practical and prudent value of a machine that acts like a
> human brain. Fascinating and cool certainly, but I don't see the
> actual benefits to mankind. I do see many potential problems for
> mankind though...
> Rather than flame me for these statements, please answer my question.
> I honestly am trying to understand the subject better.
> On Nov 23, 2009, at 5:58 PM, Matt Mahoney <firstname.lastname@example.org
> <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
>> Mike Dougherty wrote:
>> > How much complexity is in the genetic space for the development of
>> a brain? ex: total for all genetic encoding minus the parts about
>> the bloody viscera and redundant so-called junk-DNA =?= less than
>> 10^9 Like you said, nature just needs *a* brain - not an exact
>> replica of a particular brain.
>> That's for a baby brain. To model an adult brain, you have to add to
>> that all the information learned since then.
>> -- Matt Mahoney, firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>
>> *From:* Mike Dougherty <firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>>
>> *To:* firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>
>> *Sent:* Mon, November 23, 2009 6:15:30 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [sl4] The Jaguar Supercomputer
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Matt Mahoney <firstname.lastname@example.org
>> <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
>> When I say that the brain has 10^9 bits of memory, I mean its
>> Kolmogorov complexity. There are 2^(10^9) possible brains you can
>> distinguish by their behavior. (It happens to take 10^15 synapses
>> to achieve that, however). So the Kolmogorov complexity of the
>> desired outputs for any traning set also has to be at least 10^9
>> bits, or else there would be some brains that can't be distinguished.
>> If your goal is to produce *a* brain (say, to pass the Turing
>> test), and not a copy of some particular brain, then I suppose
>> you could get by with less.
>> How much complexity is in the genetic space for the development of a
>> brain? ex: total for all genetic encoding minus the parts about the
>> bloody viscera and redundant so-called junk-DNA =?= less than 10^9
>> Like you said, nature just needs *a* brain - not an exact replica of
>> a particular brain.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:05 MDT