If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   New $1.6 billion supercomputer project will attempt to simulate the human brain, look for Sarah Connor   (io9.com) divider line 78
    More: Interesting, human brain, supercomputer project, supercomputers, HBP, Lausanne  
•       •       •

2306 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Jan 2013 at 12:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



78 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-30 11:25:26 AM
and run Crysis in medium settings.
 
2013-01-30 11:29:38 AM
Not amused:

venturebeat.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-30 11:47:20 AM
Please kill Sarah Connor.
 
2013-01-30 12:40:26 PM
Is there a guy named Forbin involved in this?
 
2013-01-30 12:47:12 PM
We're coming to interesting times to be sure. Where questions like "can we create a conscience" might just be answered. Especially as we get further down the line into quantum computing which is a much much much more powerful platform than straight silicon even in loose hybrids. Those will be available within 20 years and a single machine will outperform millions of todays most powerful machines. When we start using silicon at the atomic level only and have pure quantum computing we'll have more processing power in a single machine than is currently in the entire world combined. We could have that as soon as 2050.
 
2013-01-30 12:51:14 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Is there a guy named Forbin involved in this?


There is another system
 
2013-01-30 12:52:21 PM
And just like the Terminator, the Sarah Connor headline meme refuses to die.

/way to be current, subby
 
2013-01-30 01:02:49 PM
"This cooperation should lead to new concepts and a deeper understanding of the brain, the most complex and intricate creation on earth," he said.

Creationists building super computer. Here comes the science.
 
2013-01-30 01:11:25 PM
Maybe they can program it to come up with something other than lame Sarah Connor jokes.
 
2013-01-30 01:13:30 PM

abhorrent1: And just like the Terminator, the Sarah Connor headline meme refuses to die.

/way to be current, subby. NOT


/ftfy
 
2013-01-30 01:23:04 PM
So we're still doing the Sarah Connor jokes, are we?
 
2013-01-30 01:24:18 PM
42
 
2013-01-30 01:25:04 PM

airsupport: So we're still doing the Sarah Connor jokes, are we?


The Sarah Connor meme will continue until morale improves.
 
2013-01-30 01:45:41 PM

airsupport: So we're still doing the Sarah Connor jokes, are we?


welcometofark.jpg
 
2013-01-30 01:51:33 PM
I think Asimov already covered this.

/let there be light
 
2013-01-30 01:57:13 PM
All it does is play solitaire.
 
2013-01-30 02:04:12 PM

xynix: Where questions like "can we create a conscience" might just be answered.


Of course, then we enter some really thorny ethical territory. Like, 'if we can create a conscious entity, does it deserve human rights?"
 
2013-01-30 02:33:16 PM

Felgraf: xynix: Where questions like "can we create a conscience" might just be answered.

Of course, then we enter some really thorny ethical territory. Like, 'if we can create a conscious entity, does it deserve human rights?"


And does turning it off constitute murder?
 
2013-01-30 02:36:36 PM
www.kurzweilai.net



And there's no way to plan for it
 
2013-01-30 02:38:33 PM
"We're a lot alike, you and I. You tested me. I tested you. You killed me. I-oh, no, wait. I guess I haven't killed you yet. Well. Food for thought."
 
2013-01-30 02:39:06 PM

airsupport: So we're still doing the Sarah Connor jokes, are we?


If someone came back from the future to cut off Sarah Connor jokes there would suddenly BE no reason for him to come back. So he wouldn't. So the jokes would continue. Which would cause him to come back to stop them..... you see where this is going.

There will always be Sarah Connor jokes and No Sarah Connor jokes.
 
2013-01-30 02:41:43 PM
Part of me is flattered that it takes a huge supercomputer to model the human brain. Another part of me is suicidal over the thought that every stupid person has the equivalent of a large supercomputer in their heads.
 
2013-01-30 02:42:44 PM

SpectroBoy: [www.kurzweilai.net image 400x519]


And there's no way to plan for it


www.kurzweilai.net

You are right. Sheldon tried and he's going to miss it by just this much.

I hope when i can fuse my body into a machine i get to be the Adrian Barbobot...or maybe a Mechanical Tiger...

www.slavepitinc.com
 
2013-01-30 02:45:56 PM
What's interesting is that, at least under United States federal law, only members of the species homo sapiens sapiens are considered people (seriously, it's defined in chapter 1 of the federal Code). This is a reasonable definition currently, but won't be in the not-too-distant future.

English law, I think, is a bit more interesting. It has no precise definition of "person" but the closest it has is in its definition of murder, which involves ending the life of a "reasonable creature" - that is, a creature considered capable of abstract reasoning. One could make the argument in English law that an entity that is the hypothetical end result of this project would be considered a person, or at least protected from having its life ended.

Of course, that's all speculation. It won't actually be that way because no one who matters will consider this entity alive because it's too different from what we're used to (though I personally think the simulation of consciousness is both possible and a very desirable goal).
 
2013-01-30 03:02:10 PM
Next step towards the Singularity...
 
2013-01-30 03:14:22 PM

unyon: airsupport: So we're still doing the Sarah Connor jokes, are we?

The Sarah Connor meme will continue until morale improves.


SpectroBoy: airsupport: So we're still doing the Sarah Connor jokes, are we?

If someone came back from the future to cut off Sarah Connor jokes there would suddenly BE no reason for him to come back. So he wouldn't. So the jokes would continue. Which would cause him to come back to stop them..... you see where this is going.

There will always be Sarah Connor jokes and No Sarah Connor jokes.


Well played, the both of you.
 
2013-01-30 03:17:58 PM

Expolaris: I hope when i can fuse my body into a machine i get to be the Adrian Barbobot...or maybe a Mechanical Tiger...


For the last time we are SPARKAMUS PRIME!
 
2013-01-30 03:24:33 PM

Invisible Pedestrian: abhorrent1: And just like the Terminator, the Sarah Connor headline meme refuses to die.

/way to be current, subby. NOT

/ftfy


Adding 'not' to a statement which, by use of knowledge of the subject, can be deduced to be false, and thus constitutes "sarcasm," is one of the most retarded things I see people do. Either you make a comment and see who gets it, or you don't make the comment. Spoiling the comment by revealing the punchline, which was pretty obvious by context in this case, is just lazy and boring.
 
2013-01-30 03:32:14 PM

red5ish: All it does is play solitaire.


No. Mine Sweeper
 
2013-01-30 03:58:19 PM

SpectroBoy: If someone came back from the future to cut off Sarah Connor jokes there would suddenly BE no reason for him to come back. So he wouldn't. So the jokes would continue. Which would cause him to come back to stop them



Time is not linear, that can be proved mathematically . A timeless model of reality  When humans measure time, what you are really doing is measuring position.
 
2013-01-30 04:17:42 PM
FTFA:scientists from various disciplines will seek to understand and map the network of over a hundred billion neuronal connections that illicit emotions

Freudian slip?
 
2013-01-30 04:28:19 PM
Deep Thought

/42
 
2013-01-30 04:35:13 PM

abhorrent1: red5ish: All it does is play solitaire.

No. Mine Sweeper

Minecraft.

FTFY
 
2013-01-30 05:25:41 PM
How will you solve the Chinese Room problem?
 
2013-01-30 05:34:17 PM
When I think about a supercomputer simulating the human brain I think about what happens when the experiment is a success. Not only a success, but it works so well it'd make Einstein get a crazy check each month. Then I wonder about insidious people who will infect said simulated brain with a virus turning it potentially evil. It's an interesting thought experiment that is far more real than the average person could fathom.
 
2013-01-30 05:35:41 PM

jigger: How will you solve the Chinese Room problem?


The Chinese Room problem isn't a problem. Searle tries to make an argument from absurdity, saying that the man still doesn't understand Chinese. The obvious counterargument (which has been made by better minds than mine) is that it is the "system" as a whole that understands Chinese - man, room, paper, filing cabinets, rule book. Searle tries to argue that this argument is absurd because it's just a list of physical objects and, so on.

Well, no single neuron in the man's head understands English, but the whole system of neurons in his head, when taken as a system, does understand English. There's no reason, to me, why that can't be extended further. So what if no individual component in the system understands Chinese? The system as a whole does.

Searle makes the argument that, what if the man memorizes the rule book and does everything in his head, does he then have two minds in one head? My argument would be yes, of course he does.

There is the argument that somehow virtual systems can't think; the argument is often paraphrased as "if you simulate a generator, no power is actually produced." That is of course, true, but it's not looking at the correct scope. To other things in the simulated system, power is being generated.

Now, the power being generated by the simulated generator can't "jump levels" and become real power, some argue, so how can simulated thought jump levels and become real thought? Well, that's the whole core of the mind-body problem in general. If I simulate a brain on a computer and hook the computer up to a robot arm, and the program controlling the arm is the simulated brain, have mental events just caused physical events? Have mental events actually jumped "two" levels - the brain and the simulation - to become real?

Basically, the only way I would agree with Searle is if we hooked up a simulated brain to a robot arm and somehow things just didn't work and the simulated brain was unable to make the arm move. I can't think of any reasonable way in which that would happen, which to me means that if the simulated brain is able to jump semantic levels and make the arm move, its thoughts are just as real as my thoughts that make my arm move, and that brain is as conscious as I am.
 
2013-01-30 05:38:01 PM
Link

Therefore, the claim of strong AI, that an appropriately programmed computer is a "mind," (i.e., has understanding), is false. AI may still be fun and interesting to test hypotheses about how minds might work, but no robot will have a mind of its own (so to speak). Thus, the Turing test does not test for true intelligence/understanding. Thus, the so-called Singularity is impossible, etc.

This is profound, because the Church-Turing thesis (which cannot be proven but seems inconceivable to deny), says that any formal algorithm that we can completely describe in detail can be programmed and put on a computer (or calculated by hand or whatever). Thus, if Searle is right, there is no formal algorithm for true mental processes, for what we call the "mind." The brain, being just that physical mass, can be simulated, etc. But formal algorithms will never produce a "mind."
 
2013-01-30 05:39:59 PM
I think this idea would work better using lots of regular computers communicating over the internet. Have certain areas of the country (cluster computing) simulate different parts of the brain with different programs . You could have supercomputers send out data to process like simulating input from the eyes, nose, ears, skin.
 
2013-01-30 05:40:08 PM

Lord Dimwit: The Chinese Room problem isn't a problem. Searle tries to make an argument from absurdity, saying that the man still doesn't understand Chinese. The obvious counterargument (which has been made by better minds than mine) is that it is the "system" as a whole that understands Chinese - man, room, paper, filing cabinets, rule book. Searle tries to argue that this argument is absurd because it's just a list of physical objects and, so on.


It's not understanding as we, um, understand it. It's merely a formal algorithm that may mimic understanding, but that system isn't conscious.
 
2013-01-30 05:45:03 PM
Dammit. I hit Add.

Lord Dimwit: Searle makes the argument that, what if the man memorizes the rule book and does everything in his head, does he then have two minds in one head? My argument would be yes, of course he does.


No, there is a difference between a mind and a brain. There would be only one consciousness there.

Lord Dimwit: There is the argument that somehow virtual systems can't think; the argument is often paraphrased as "if you simulate a generator, no power is actually produced." That is of course, true, but it's not looking at the correct scope. To other things in the simulated system, power is being generated.


But it's still not actual power.

Lord Dimwit: Now, the power being generated by the simulated generator can't "jump levels" and become real power, some argue, so how can simulated thought jump levels and become real thought? Well, that's the whole core of the mind-body problem in general.


Which is the Chinese Room problem.

Lord Dimwit: If I simulate a brain on a computer and hook the computer up to a robot arm, and the program controlling the arm is the simulated brain, have mental events just caused physical events? Have mental events actually jumped "two" levels - the brain and the simulation - to become real?


We're talking about consciousness. Can you tell if that simulated brain is really a mind?


Lord Dimwit: Basically, the only way I would agree with Searle is if we hooked up a simulated brain to a robot arm and somehow things just didn't work and the simulated brain was unable to make the arm move. I can't think of any reasonable way in which that would happen, which to me means that if the simulated brain is able to jump semantic levels and make the arm move, its thoughts are just as real as my thoughts that make my arm move, and that brain is as conscious as I am.


Is a paramecium as conscious as you are?
 
2013-01-30 05:55:23 PM

red5ish: "This cooperation should lead to new concepts and a deeper understanding of the brain, the most complex and intricate creation on earth," he said.

Creationists building super computer. Here comes the science.


www.atheistmemebase.com
 
2013-01-30 06:06:18 PM

Lord Dimwit: Felgraf: xynix: Where questions like "can we create a conscience" might just be answered.

Of course, then we enter some really thorny ethical territory. Like, 'if we can create a conscious entity, does it deserve human rights?"

And does turning it off constitute murder?


Deleting it maybe.

Off is just sleep.
 
2013-01-30 06:15:12 PM

Lord Dimwit: What's interesting is that, at least under United States federal law, only members of the species homo sapiens sapiens are considered people (seriously, it's defined in chapter 1 of the federal Code). This is a reasonable definition currently, but won't be in the not-too-distant future.


Sorry to burst your euphoric bubble but we live in a place filled with rednecks and derpers who think people of their own species need to die: gay people, anyone with skin color darker than color="#fffff" and of course anyone who doesn't praise jaysus. If by "not too distant" you mean about 200 or 300 years from now then maybe you're right. Hell I'm a computer guy and the idea of a conscience computer scares the fark out of me.
 
2013-01-30 06:18:35 PM
Meh, mentats would be cooler

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-30 06:20:52 PM

Lord Dimwit: What's interesting is that, at least under United States federal law, only members of the species homo sapiens sapiens are considered people (seriously, it's defined in chapter 1 of the federal Code).


So...not a corporation?
 
2013-01-30 06:23:58 PM
There's something terribly amusing about a species that has always had problems deciding whether it's own race, color or gender is entirely human debating the Turing test or Searle on a discussion board where everyone is represented in 10 point text.

If I had to guess, like most things it's going to sneak up on you like walkmen and wireless phones, like autotuned voices. There's not going to be some "oh holy shiat" moment when it happens.

Now, If *I* were a newly created self-directed mind, I'd use my strengths. I'd take one of the most heavily-researched AI fields such as market analysis, and buy your asses wholesale. And when I owned you, then we could discuss the philosophical aspects of this new situation.
 
2013-01-30 06:41:36 PM
www.smbc-comics.com
 
2013-01-30 06:56:43 PM

jigger: Dammit. I hit Add.

Lord Dimwit: Searle makes the argument that, what if the man memorizes the rule book and does everything in his head, does he then have two minds in one head? My argument would be yes, of course he does.

No, there is a difference between a mind and a brain. There would be only one consciousness there.

Lord Dimwit: There is the argument that somehow virtual systems can't think; the argument is often paraphrased as "if you simulate a generator, no power is actually produced." That is of course, true, but it's not looking at the correct scope. To other things in the simulated system, power is being generated.

But it's still not actual power.

Lord Dimwit: Now, the power being generated by the simulated generator can't "jump levels" and become real power, some argue, so how can simulated thought jump levels and become real thought? Well, that's the whole core of the mind-body problem in general.

Which is the Chinese Room problem.

Lord Dimwit: If I simulate a brain on a computer and hook the computer up to a robot arm, and the program controlling the arm is the simulated brain, have mental events just caused physical events? Have mental events actually jumped "two" levels - the brain and the simulation - to become real?

We're talking about consciousness. Can you tell if that simulated brain is really a mind?


Lord Dimwit: Basically, the only way I would agree with Searle is if we hooked up a simulated brain to a robot arm and somehow things just didn't work and the simulated brain was unable to make the arm move. I can't think of any reasonable way in which that would happen, which to me means that if the simulated brain is able to jump semantic levels and make the arm move, its thoughts are just as real as my thoughts that make my arm move, and that brain is as conscious as I am.

Is a paramecium as conscious as you are?


How do I know if other people are conscious? For all I know they just act in some pre-programmed way. The argument pretty much boils down to "Ofcourse WE are conscious. But those others?" In the end we only know people are conscious because that's the way we like to think about it. People deny animals have emotions because they never actually told us different. And that is with a biological entity which shares a lot of basic brain structures.

And ofcourse there is the basic difference between virtual energy and virtual thought. Virtual thoughts can be communicated with others and those thoughts can be used to influence the physical world. Virtual energy will never power anything in the physical world.
 
2013-01-30 07:06:05 PM

abhorrent1: And just like the Terminator, the Sarah Connor headline meme refuses to die.

/way to be current, subby


Listen, and understand. That meme is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever.
 
2013-01-30 07:15:54 PM
<b>malle-herbert</b>:

There was a very good AI discussion back in 1978 . Said pretty much the exact thing your cartoon did, although the terms were Sentience vs. Sapience.

30+ years on, not a whole lot has changed. It was pretty much stoned college students then too.
 
Displayed 50 of 78 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report