Developing an actual programmed nano-bot which can build and maintain a "De Garis"
style "Brain" appears in theory to create the paridigm shift for computational
structure evolution. This "Brain" could in turn design even more sophisticated
nano-bots whose ultimate function would be a drastic acceleration of AI. This
would mark the event horizon of the "Singularity"
Eugene Leitl wrote:
> Ramez Naam writes:
> > Yes, if de Garis' neural connections are just random, there's no way he's
> > going to achieve human-level intelligence, even with 1000x the neurons.
> GAs are not random. I do not get his manual block assembly part, though.
> > That having been said, his plans are encouraging in two respects:
> > 1) Independent of getting human-level (or human-like) intelligence, a neural
> > net of that size does seem to hold the promise of being a remarkably
> > powerful learning machine.
> Size alone is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
> > 2) If he can really simulate 10^12 neurons in 2011, then that leaves the
> > door open for scanning a human brain and replicating its architecture in de
> > Garis' neural simulation. In 2011 presumably the only option would be a
> > destructive scan, but even this would be phenomenally ahead of schedule.
> On what evidence do you base this absurd optimism?
> > The major question in my mind is how rich his simulated neurons are. How
> > many synaptic connections do they each have? How frequently are their time
> > slices? How closely can the mimic the behavior of human neurons?
> Once again, his neurons are highly simplified sketches. They are
> Potyemkin's villages of neurons. The tasks of creating an AI and
> neuronal emulation are only distantly related. Neuronal emulation is
> distinctly harder.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:49 MDT