= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pianoforte611 comments on Open thread, Mar. 9 - Mar. 15, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (109)
Where could you have possibly gotten that idea? Seriously, can you point out some references for context?
Pretty much universally within the AGI community it is agreed that the roadblock to AGI is software, not hardware. Even on the whole-brain emulation route, the most powerful supercomputer built today is sufficient to do WBE of a human. The most powerful hardware actually in use by a real AGI or WBE research programme is orders of magnitude less powerful, of course. But if that were the only holdup then it'd be very easily fixable.
Why do you think this? We can't even simulate proteins interactions accurately on an atomic level. Simulating a whole brain seems very far off.
Not necessarily. For all we know, we might not need to simulate a human brain on an atomic level to get accurate results. Simulating a brain on a neuron level might be sufficient.
Even if you approximate each neuron to a neural network node (which is probably not good enough for a WBE), we still don't have enough processing power to do a WBE in close to real time. Not even close. We're many orders of magnitude off even with the fastest supercomputers. And each biological neuron is much more complex than a neural node in function not just in structure.
And creating the abstraction is a software problem. :/