From: Mu In Taiwan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Nov 18 2009 - 19:20:22 MST
1. Asserts IBM simulated 1% of a human cortex this year.
2. Not using fastest machine in the world.
3. Assuming that J.C. is correct with his observation of 'moore's law
squared' (not improbable given that the graphics industry achieved moore's
law CUBED for a good many years...)
4. That means about 5 years from now we can expect to have machines capable
of simulating 100% of a human cortex.
5. If they're running at 1/100 speed like the other examples, add another 5
years for real time.
6. Maybe sooner - I suspect as IBM gets closer to their goal, money will
funny how these things creep up on you...
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 6:20 PM, John K Clark <email@example.com>wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 "J. Andrew Rogers"
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> >the Top 500 benchmark (LINPACK) doesn't measure much
> > of anything useful.
> > It is an embarrassingly parallel benchmark
> Nothing to be embarrassed about, most processes in the physical world
> are parallel and predicting what will happen next is a key element of
> intelligence. Vision recognition is parallel, and so is search, chess,
> language translation, and the human brain itself. It's true that most
> programs that call themselves AI are not very parallel, and that's
> probably why most AI programs suck.
> And whatever LINPACK's shortcomings it must have had those same flaws 5
> years ago, but machines have doubled it's speed every 9 months since
> then. I find that fact significant.
> John K Clark
> John K Clark
> http://www.fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 24 2013 - 04:01:19 MDT