What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Smart Guys Keep Their Faces Looking Young view!
howlifeworks.com - Why men have finally started to use certain anti-aging skin care products...
84 Comments
- Lefts, on 11/08/2009, -1/+53Shouldn't this be "How much power does a human brain-level computer require to operate?
A little misleading, since the human brain requires less than a lightbulb. - DeskFlyer, on 11/07/2009, -2/+53My brain requires 1.21 gigawatts.
- atomic811, on 11/08/2009, -0/+36My brain is approved by EnergyStar
- atgmac, on 11/08/2009, -0/+36Imagine if you collected all the computers ever made into one room, networked them using high speed links and somehow got enough power to run them all. Would you have a superior intellect, capable of destroying all human civilisation as we know it? No. You'd have a bunch of computers in a room.
Merely having the equivalent hardware to simulate a brain is not enough to do anything useful. We still don't know enough about how the brain works to accurately simulate one, and even if we did, it probably isn't such an easy task to replicate it. A mouse's brain by 2011? No. A dead mouse's brain by 2011? Maybe. - Hignaki, on 11/08/2009, -0/+26You can find the official scanned script online. It's spelled gigawatts but pronounced jigawatts. True story bro.
- stutimandal, on 11/08/2009, -3/+26{{According to Kwabena Boahen, a computer scientist at Stanford University, a robot with a processor as smart as the human brain would require at least 10 megawatts to operate.}}
This is a fraud claim. We do not know how to make processors like the human brain. So claiming about power consumption of a non-existent entity is farce. - HeavyWave, on 11/08/2009, -1/+19"from 30 to 90 percent" huh? What an accurate estimation.
- Salamati6, on 11/08/2009, -0/+15"The human brain's neurons misfire from 30 to 90 percent of the time."
What happens when there's a 'misfire'? O.o - sadic, on 11/08/2009, -0/+14great scott!!!
- kotani, on 11/08/2009, -0/+13Wow.. I stand corrected... Thank you.
- spookyttws, on 11/08/2009, -1/+14Overclocking is generally discouraged, additional voltage may cause heart failure.
- Heiminator, on 11/08/2009, -0/+11dugg for nerd wisdom on a sunday morning :-)
- Khirzask, on 11/08/2009, -0/+11brain fart.
- kotani, on 11/08/2009, -1/+12jigawatts...
- trainer, on 11/08/2009, -0/+10Here comes the singularity?
- Myztry, on 11/08/2009, -4/+14"a processor as smart as the human brain would require at least 10 megawatts to operate."
*****. We have processors and we have 10 megawatts available. If we knew how it could be done we would be doing it. 10 megawatts is just a number pulled out of someone's ass for an application they have no idea how to achieve. The statements is as relevant as the 1.21 Gigawatts used as a joke above. - Stoyanov, on 11/08/2009, -0/+9The more you know.™
- jjamminjon, on 11/08/2009, -0/+9She gets pregnant....
- Rain12913, on 11/08/2009, -0/+8Every time somebody posts these zig-zagging Japanese character it always says some ***** about cats and manors.
- TheInformer, on 11/08/2009, -1/+9Congress = nanowatt
- TechnoRabbit, on 11/08/2009, -2/+10No, we can estimate how much processing power we have in several ways, one of which is to count how many synapses we have in our brain and count them as one transistor in a processor, able to store a single on/off state. From there we can estimate how powerful of a computer you need to have the power of a human brain. From there you can estimate how much electricity it would take to power such a computer would take.
It's all speculation, but that's all they claimed it to be. - rft3rd, on 11/08/2009, -2/+10But can it run Crysis?
- copypastry, on 11/07/2009, -0/+7Mouse processing power by 2011. That's only two years away. Damn.
Human processing power by 2025? - copypastry, on 11/08/2009, -0/+7***** yeah.
- rft3rd, on 11/08/2009, -1/+8fap fap
- HigherLogic, on 11/08/2009, -1/+8Didn't know that. FTA:
"[...] the human brain's low energy requirements of just 20 watts—barely enough to run a dim light bulb." - Culyt, on 11/08/2009, -0/+7Actually 2025 is when a $1000 cpu has the processing power of the human brain.
The million dollar super computers of 2013 should be in that area. Maybe even earlier. Pleiades is scheduled for 10 petaflops in 2012 and Blue Gene/Q is 20 petaflops in 2011. - milkmage, on 11/08/2009, -0/+6@dracul
storing something in RAM is only one of the fuctions of a computer. the brain has a hell of a lot more than than going on (and we're not even conscious of that activity).
we're all running daemons in the background that... breathe, keep the heart beating, and regulate chemistry to notify the system that: you're hungry, you're tired, you're scared, you're thristy, you're... whatever. nevermind the processes that keep us standing up straght, walking, running.. all the while we're also processing and adjusting to inputs (touch, video, audio) etc. they still can't make a robot that is as agile as a human because the computers can't process all the inputs as efficiently as the brain. anyone can switch from walk to skip to run, to hop.. but i have yet to see a robot that can do ALL of those tasks as well as I can. how many MIPS am I using to: read what you said, process that information, formulate a response, and operate the servos in my hands to share that response? there's a whole bunch of other specialized programs some of us have that can create new output (from UNKNOWN inputs) that let us create paintings, songs, poems, and other forms of art.
give your CPU more credit dude. 10MW seems pretty cheap for artificial intelligence/consciousness. - addiktion, on 11/08/2009, -0/+5Someone said,"why don't we just make the silicon bigger." on the article. Probably because people don't want car sized computers but I gotta agree with the commenter on a point. I mean damn are we that obsessed with smaller? I'm happy with the size of my computer remaining at a constant size but it's power increasing even more because we make smaller pathways on a similar sized CPU. Sure lets do the mobile computing device thing but I'm guessing we can make something amazing if we blew up the size of one massive computer brain with the newer technology they are slapping in smaller chips. Moore's law might end but that doesn't mean technology won't be improved in other ways to continue improvements. Interesting times.
- shadowq8, on 11/08/2009, -2/+7Most politicians are in the micro watt range...
- Macrozonaris, on 11/08/2009, -0/+4The brain isn't just one processor. It is 30 billion processors (neurons) that are linked. It's not a Dell desktop computer. It's a Google data center.
- doomestic, on 11/08/2009, -0/+4Apples and Oranges...
- KenMing, on 11/08/2009, -0/+4http://xkcd.com/644/
- feezus, on 11/08/2009, -0/+4You just blew my ***** mind.
- spiralspirit, on 11/08/2009, -0/+3smaller is more efficient in terms of work per clock, heat waste, and cost.
thats why. - AndrewDB, on 11/08/2009, -1/+4People like Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann think they can run for office.
- JQP123, on 11/08/2009, -0/+3I've always said that real artificial intelligence would require a complete redesign of the computer was we know it. Sounds like this is exactly what the folks in this article have in mind.
"Intelligence" is not a magic binary logic pattern. - Rain12913, on 11/08/2009, -0/+3"one of which is to count how many synapses we have in our brain and count them as one transistor in a processor, able to store a single on/off state"
This would not be an accurate method. Each synapse between two neurons (I won't even get into the synapses between more than two neurons) has billions of potential states due to the fact that millions of neurotransmitters can be released at any given synapse. Sure, we could make some kind of new estimation based upon this magnitude by considering each individual neurotransmitter/receptor couple a single transistor, but like Stutimandal said, we're so ignorant of the brain that attempting to make any kind of realistic estimation of its true processing power is completely futile.
@Exiler86: Stutimandal is aware of that, he's simply stating that it's impossible to estimate the power requirements of a synthetic computer which has equal processing power to our brain since we aren't even capable of determining what that amount processing power is due to our (ever decreasing, slowly but surely) ignorance about the brain. - Atario, on 11/09/2009, -0/+3Nonetheless, I was looking forward to a nice public parading of the fact that the brain consumes the most calories per gram of any body tissue, and 20% of your body's total calorie budget goes for brain power, despite it only being 2% of your weight.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JacquelineLing ... - mKdiR, on 11/08/2009, -0/+3I'm pretty sure your hand shakes because there is blood rushing through it.
- homer524, on 11/08/2009, -3/+5how girl get pragnent
- Metasquares, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2This is because you're trying to brute force AI rather than actually understanding why the human brain is intelligent. That approach has never been and never will be about efficiency.
- transapien, on 11/09/2009, -0/+2You and apparently everyone else that dugg you is basically wrong. The article IS fundamentally about how little operational power the brain requires. The Neurogrid was inspired by the brain. The focus is on the functionality of a computer based on the structure and power level of the brain which would require far less energy to operate(albeit sacrificing a degree of accuracy which is attempted to be resolved by the elegant methodology of the brain).
- stanleyford, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2"You'd have a bunch of computers in a room." -- Exactly. People have this weird idea that complexity somehow spontaneously gives rise to intelligence, as if you just keep piling on transistors and at some point you tip the scale and give rise to strong AI. This odd misconception is the basis for about half of our sci-fi movies, but it really doesn't make sense at all if you think about it.
- speede06, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2I want one of those cards
- nofrickenway, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2Does this mean Zombies are "Green"
- emjaymj, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2If the misfire sets off a chain reaction it'd be a seizure
- golgotha, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2jigga? please
- transapien, on 11/09/2009, -0/+2No you're just retarded as it is. Blame not the weed.
-
Show 51 - 88 of 88 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is