The human brain actually uses a very inefficient electrochemical digital-controlled analog computational process. The bulk of the calculations are done in the interneuronal connections at a speed of only about 200 calculations per second (in each connection), which is about 10 million times slower than contemporary electronic circuits. But the brain gains its prodigious powers from its extremely parallel organization in three dimensions. There are many technologies in the wings that build circuitry in three dimensions.
taken from “INVISIBLE FUTURE”
What exactly does the above passage explain?? What if we are able to invent a three dimensional array of processing units in a processor (the research is underway to invent a microprocessor based on human mind architecture)…What exactly will that result in???
not much in comparison to the real thing, IMO, digitalsniper.
artificial neural networks have been in and out of vogue since the 1950s (52 to be precise), and there is little to indicate that they can come up with anything even distantly similar to the human brain's processing capability and versatility.
furthermore, it is by no means certain that neural networks exclusively account for processing in our brains.
reference for the three dimensional neural net? i'd be very interested in giving it a read.
Well thats good and new to me at least.... but are u talking abt neural networks in hardware?? I think 3d processing units or 3d architecture, although very difficult to visualize, is possible... See, if some computer gets smarter than a human being, what EXACTLY does that mean... Are they going to invade us...I think thats complicated to think even because the invetorsof those machines will still be human beings and human minds knowing all the backdoors of such a machine
:) i highly doubt they'll invade us in our lifetime digitalsniper.
neural networks, being easy to implement, are done in both hardware and software. they have been good at tasks like image recognition, signal processing, but even there they compete with other, non-neural based methods of learning.
Im unsure as to the degree of impact dimensionality will add to neural networks, and am unconvinced that it will infact make any amount of significant difference how they're spatially layed out, given the same number of nodes and connections.
nevertheless, its an open philosophical question if computer "life" can become more intelligent than human, not when. i'd recommend you read the "Chinese Room" argument.. and Searle's work.
Most contemporay AI people have settled into the less ambitious role of making computers better at the tasks they do by making them more "intelligent", instead of making them compete with human intelligence.
IF we get to the stage where we have general purpose, human competetive intelligence, then we have a guideline to go by.. that (almost) guarantees a non-matrix like world. Its called Asimov's three laws of robotics, and was put forward, (along with the word "robotics") by Isaac Asimov way back in the first half of the 20th century, before computers OR robots.
(substitute computers with robots should you feel the need :))
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
EDIT: 20TH century not 19th century. evidently natural intelligence isnt so hot either :-\ .