In article <nTsJOO57h4sa7W0W=SL59bxqUI=b at 4ax.com>, Ian <iadmontg at undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> writes:
|> My AI textbook lists a factoid saying that a typical desktop computer could
|> do "10^5 neuron updates per second". It was written in 1995, and listing
|> figures for a processor with ~100,000 gates. So evidently, a
|> nearly-obsolete PC CPU running neural net software could update about 10^5
|> neurodes per second.
|>|> The number of "neuron updates per second" for the biological brain is
|> listed as 10^14. So there is a 9 order of magnitude difference. Based on
|> the general speed increase over the last 4-5 years, that should be about 8
|> orders of magnitude by the present day.
|>|> If we assumed Moore's Law would continue to hold, this gives us an estimate
|> more optimistic than the "45 years for brain power on the desktop" estimate
|> posted earlier. By 2030, the heuristic gives a desktop PC with 10^12
|> neuron updates per second, 10^14 by 2040.
|>|> Note that these figures are for running some kind of (unstated) typical
|> neural net software on a typical desktop CPU. With some kind of
|> purpose-optimized system, the job could likely be done with significantly
|> less computing complexity.
|>
So why wait? I'd guess a decent current machine could cope with 10^7 updates
per second. Distribute this across 1,000 machines, and we're up to 10^10.
(and you have a relatively fault tolerant brain as well)
This gives a second of "awareness" every 10^4 seconds - or about every 3 hours.
Add more, or faster machines, and you get closer to real time thought.
How many machines are running crunching cycles on SETI?
I'd think a more difficult problem would be setting up the basic programming,
the original neural configuration, and providing meaningful input.
Realistically, we ought to be able to simulate a human brain in pretty close to
real time, right now...
Anyone out there read "True Names" by V. Vinge?
Dan Lingman
Nortel Networks != Me. Not even close.
