Message from @UnfilteredGarbage

Discord ID: 626404746198253568


2019-09-25 13:05:36 UTC  

Size is never irrelevant <:Kappa:386676594120589312>

2019-09-25 13:05:50 UTC  

the important thing is if they can accurately model it

2019-09-25 13:05:54 UTC  

Is the brain really random or is it all deterministic based on measurable chemicals and some such

2019-09-25 13:05:57 UTC  

moore's law will do the rest

2019-09-25 13:06:01 UTC  

The first attempts at artificial brains will probably have such horrifying results that they'll be banned globally

2019-09-25 13:06:14 UTC  

Any reason to believe that?

2019-09-25 13:06:19 UTC  

I think if we were to try and make an AI based on what we know and have right now, scholarly and hardware-wise, we'd have things that can solve something we've given it information on how to solve in a very short timespan.

2019-09-25 13:06:25 UTC  

Moores law is in decline last time I checked

2019-09-25 13:06:49 UTC  

I don't think we have anything that can truly learn on its own. So far we've made programs that tell it _how_ to learn, not that it can just learn.

2019-09-25 13:07:00 UTC  

@Samaritan™ it's deterministic but the determinism is so minute that it's extremely difficult to emulate, so it appears nearly random
This is a big hurdle in emulating the brain, and also in understanding neurological processes

2019-09-25 13:07:04 UTC  

More specifically, programs that tell it _what_ to learn

2019-09-25 13:07:05 UTC  

Moore’s law isn’t that fucked right now

2019-09-25 13:07:07 UTC  

See AMD

2019-09-25 13:07:25 UTC  

It’s just harder to make die shrinks happen really which is what propelled it

2019-09-25 13:07:30 UTC  

@UnfilteredGarbage That is effectively my position on this

2019-09-25 13:07:32 UTC  

@Lios this. Deep learning is just efficiency-minded memorization and recall

2019-09-25 13:07:55 UTC  

And only on specific subjects

2019-09-25 13:08:03 UTC  

Well outside of what something one would call intelligence

2019-09-25 13:08:15 UTC  

Technological progression isn't at a consistent speed

2019-09-25 13:08:40 UTC  

Still kinda fast these past few decades

2019-09-25 13:08:49 UTC  

@Samaritan™ sure, but we're talking about getting around a basic limitation of physics in this regard

2019-09-25 13:08:49 UTC  

Its remarkable that its been getting faster and more complex at the same time I wouldn't be shocked if that hit a wall at some point

2019-09-25 13:09:08 UTC  

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/613767975614283832/626404812485033994/image0.jpg

2019-09-25 13:09:22 UTC  

Well we seem to be hitting a wall on miniaturization at this point

2019-09-25 13:09:24 UTC  

Walls have been hit everywhere, and surpassed within the past 40 years on numerous subjects. That's the rate of our current technological advance.

2019-09-25 13:09:39 UTC  

Once again my point exactly @UnfilteredGarbage

2019-09-25 13:09:45 UTC  

We're almost overdoing it

2019-09-25 13:10:05 UTC  

Hitting a wall or lacking the materials

2019-09-25 13:10:19 UTC  

Lacking the ability to work with the materials

2019-09-25 13:10:19 UTC  

Quantum computing is how we get around the wall, but that's theoretical right now

2019-09-25 13:10:21 UTC  

Carbon nanotubes could see us drop below 7nm easily

2019-09-25 13:10:31 UTC  

Nah, genuine walls. Inability to conceive of a method beyond the current one

2019-09-25 13:10:33 UTC  

Quantum computers exist do they not?

2019-09-25 13:10:40 UTC  

And yeah, carbon nanotubes aren't hitting a technological wall

2019-09-25 13:10:43 UTC  

Just a logistical one

2019-09-25 13:10:52 UTC  

That shit is fucking expensive and time-consuming to make

2019-09-25 13:10:55 UTC  

We need a production method for carbon nanotubes

2019-09-25 13:10:59 UTC  

Google claims to have built one lune

2019-09-25 13:11:00 UTC  

Engineers

2019-09-25 13:11:02 UTC  

Get on that shit