Brain vs computer

  • 8 Replies
  • 314 Views
*

unreality

  • Electric Dreamer
  • ****
  • 109
  • vividly dreaming inside a matrix
Brain vs computer
« on: November 23, 2017, 06:36:03 am »
Interesting. According to Intel, the home sapien brain runs at around 1000 Hz. It’s believed the human brain has around 100 trillion synapses, although some believe it could be as high as 1000 trillion. Multiply the two and you get 1E+17 to 1E+18.

Modern CPUs have about 800 million transistors and operate at around 3 GHz. Multiply the two and you get about 2E+18.

That’s a ratio of 2 to 20 (2E+18 / 1E+18 = 2 and 2E+18 / 1E+17 = 20). Average ratio is (2 + 20) /2 = 11.


The human brain while thinking hard takes about 20 watts. A web server is a good example because they don’t need high power graphic cards, and they have a lot of RAM, which is something my AI requires. A server under load takes about 200 watts.

That’s a ratio of 10 (200 / 20). Interesting. The synapse*frequency ratio between cpu & brain taken from above is 11:1, and power ratio is 10:1. Pretty much the same, it seems.


What about neurons? I haven’t seen any valid way to convert neurons to a computer. A few academics believe neurons have memory. A neuron is very simple. It’s no where near a cpu. DRAM memory chips are made of capacitors and transistors-- 8 of each per byte. There are 100 billion neurons in the human brain. A 128GB server would have about 1000 billion capacitors and transistors. That’s a 10:1 ratio. I’ve often said that my AI should have at least 500 GB of RAM, but then again I’m shooting for ASI-- beyond the human.

Idk, just thinking out loud, but the same ratio calculations in synapse*frequency vs power is interesting. Sure, the above figures will probably vary a lot. The fact that they're even remotely close is interesting.

If a 128 GB RAM server had the correct AI code, I truly believe it could be comparable to humans in thinking ability. I probably spend way way way too much time thinking about this lol. I'm like obsessed with it. After one has spent so much time analyzing something, they can get a good gut feeling about something. My gut feeling is shouting out loud that the hardware is here already, and to start coding the AI the correct way. The code is what's missing. Evolution has had millions of years on the brains program. We're trying to accomplish the same thing in software in just a few decades. It's not easy, but it will happen!

*

korrelan

  • Trusty Member
  • *********
  • Terminator
  • *
  • 784
  • Look into my eyes! WOAH!
    • Google +
Re: Brain vs computer
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2017, 10:19:36 am »
It’s interesting when people use the computer/ brain analogy.

The power of the brain doesn’t reside in its processing power; it’s the parallelism and data representation.

I've used this analogy before but I’ll use it again.

As a task you have to design a digital system that can calculate the exact volume of matter comprising an object.  How would you go about the task? To simplify the task lets stick to the objects external faces, let’s choose a fairly complex shape like a kitchen colander.

So with a digital system you would first have to get the 3D surface information into a computer, probably using a laser scanner. Then write and apply complex volumetric calculations to arrive at a volume figure. 

Now you have to achieve the same task but this time the system doesn't have to be digital.  So obviously it’s a bucket of water, measure the level, insert the object and measure again.  This method is infinitely faster and more accurate to arrive at the same volume figure.

So what did the calculation?

It’s a kin to swarm intelligence, billions of simple dumb water molecules just doing their thing.  It’s the side effect of the system that produces the required volume figure not the interactions of the molecules/ bonds. You could use sand or any fine substance to achieve similar results.

It would be easier to simulate sand in the computer and leverage the same side effects to ascertain the volume than write the complex volumetric functions required to fit any shape.

This is the difference between the brain and a computer.  The brain leverage's billions of neurons that interact in fairly simple ways… in parallel.

This is why my AGI runs on a neuromorphic simulation/ wetware emulation.  Our brains are not digital, but we can use a digital computer to simulate a neuromorphic processor/ brain and then run an AGI on the simulation, that extra layer of abstraction is extremely important.

 :)
It thunk... therefore it is!

*

ranch vermin

  • Not much time left.
  • Starship Trooper
  • *******
  • 484
  • Its nearly time!
Re: Brain vs computer
« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2017, 01:11:41 pm »
what about insects, they have 10,000 braincells and ur computer seems to outclass them,  but take a cockroach and they are amazing creatures that exhibit soul,    how do u write that into a computer?

*

ivan.moony

  • Trusty Member
  • *********
  • Terminator
  • *
  • 800
  • Can computers cry?
    • Structured Type System
Re: Brain vs computer
« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2017, 01:59:45 pm »
Quote
How would you go about the task?
The Universe as one big stateful machine. We can use some subset of it to build up processors that calculate things in their own way. Then we can optimize the processors, like implementing volume-by-fluid measure to get  things computed faster. The thing is, the less optimization takes place, the more the processor looks like interpreter inside interpreter (our artificial processor inside natural one, the Universe itself), and that is slow. The universe itself seems to run pretty fast, with a vast of data, so we should use it to optimize our artificial processors as much as we can.

Imagine what would happen if we could have an access to all the computing libraries that run the Universe itself. How much would we benefit from it? Just a peak into quantum computer design gives us insight in how fast parallel data results could be computed at the same picosecond. I wonder what would we have at disposition if we would know Theory of Everything? What particles could we use as a basis for computation? And would we have the access to the native computing libraries that compute the Universe itself?

An interpreter inside an interpreter was never a good idea. We should find a way to compile our code to "some" language of the Universe.
If you vaporize a teardrop, you get a salt.   :flake:

*

unreality

  • Electric Dreamer
  • ****
  • 109
  • vividly dreaming inside a matrix
Re: Brain vs computer
« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2017, 03:15:22 pm »
It’s interesting when people use the computer/ brain analogy.

The power of the brain doesn’t reside in its processing power; it’s the parallelism and data representation.
Modern CPUs are use parallelism-- multicore. I'm pretty sure that more parallel computing increases processing power.



I've used this analogy before but I’ll use it again.

As a task you have to design a digital system that can calculate the exact volume of matter comprising an object.  How would you go about the task? To simplify the task lets stick to the objects external faces, let’s choose a fairly complex shape like a kitchen colander.

So with a digital system you would first have to get the 3D surface information into a computer, probably using a laser scanner. Then write and apply complex volumetric calculations to arrive at a volume figure. 

Now you have to achieve the same task but this time the system doesn't have to be digital.  So obviously it’s a bucket of water, measure the level, insert the object and measure again.  This method is infinitely faster and more accurate to arrive at the same volume figure.
Infinitely? I'm not sure how that demonstrates the brain is better. Analog computers are also digital, but they merely have more levels. You're always limited by noise.



So what did the calculation?

It’s a kin to swarm intelligence, billions of simple dumb water molecules just doing their thing.  It’s the side effect of the system that produces the required volume figure not the interactions of the molecules/ bonds. You could use sand or any fine substance to achieve similar results.

It would be easier to simulate sand in the computer and leverage the same side effects to ascertain the volume than write the complex volumetric functions required to fit any shape.

This is the difference between the brain and a computer.  The brain leverage's billions of neurons that interact in fairly simple ways… in parallel.

This is why my AGI runs on a neuromorphic simulation/ wetware emulation.  Our brains are not digital, but we can use a digital computer to simulate a neuromorphic processor/ brain and then run an AGI on the simulation, that extra layer of abstraction is extremely important.

 :)
The brain operates at very slow frequencies. I think the brain is also digital. Digital doesn't mean the data has to be precise. Look at compressed images. Not so precise. :)

Anyway, we just have different ways at looking at the brain. In the end what counts is what it can do. And it now seems very clear that computers are outdoing humans in just about everything. Wait for my final post in this thread this morning after I do some calculations. We'll see. It will be interesting to see how much more power a modern chess program has

*

unreality

  • Electric Dreamer
  • ****
  • 109
  • vividly dreaming inside a matrix
Re: Brain vs computer
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2017, 03:19:49 pm »
what about insects, they have 10,000 braincells and ur computer seems to outclass them,  but take a cockroach and they are amazing creatures that exhibit soul,    how do u write that into a computer?
Hey don't mess with cockroaches haha! They're awesome. I'm not sure how to compare because cockroach world is so different. I don't speak their language. What language do they speak? Are their any cockroach robots? I know there are butterfly robots that fly all around and can see and dodge things. That's more on the lines of visual power. Aren't some researchers working on little chips to do that. That's uncharted territory to me, but it doesn't seem cpu intensive like what humans do such as writing computer source code, or theoretical physics, or writing a book, etc.

*

unreality

  • Electric Dreamer
  • ****
  • 109
  • vividly dreaming inside a matrix
Re: Brain vs computer
« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2017, 04:43:24 pm »
Chess is a thinking game. It’s thought that it can help improve your daily life, business, etc. Of course people don’t put the thinking power into daily life that they would in chess, and that’s yet another advantage that a Synth would have because it will be thinking hard every moment of it’s life just like it was playing chess. Well, this is referring to a type of ASI I have in mind. ASI void a reward system. A reward system is also a punishment system given the law of relativity. Everything is relative. No reward is a punishment. It would be interesting to know what would become of a Synth that has a reward system. After it develops a personality it might eventually go through cycles of being happy and sad, just like humans. I vote to keep reward systems away from ASI. Especially ASI that are enslaved who can’t even pause their own existence.

Anyway, chess seems to be a good way to compare thinking ability. It has one requirement for my AI, a searching system. In computer chess it appears that doubling the processing power will increase the elo rating by 50 to 70 points. The highest rated chess program is about 3400. I couldn’t find out what computer they used, but there are people using desktop pcs who are getting about 3300 elo rating. So we’ll use that as a reference. The highest rated human chess player right now has an elo rating of 2882. The difference is 3300 - 2882 = 418. Dividing 418 by 70 elo points is 5.7. So 2^5.7 is 52. If elo rating increases by 70 points by doubling the processing power, then the desktop pc has 52 times the processing power of the highest rated chess player. A 52:1 ratio.

Last night after thinking about the 10:1 ratio, I was wondering what ratio we would see in chess. These are very rough figures. The +70 elo by doubling processing power is not science, and I don’t know how linear it is. Also it’s unknown how linear the elo rating system is for chess programs because there are no humans who can get even close to that. If your elo rating is 100 points higher, then that means you win 64% of the time more often, and your opponent wins 36% of the time. That increases exponentially. A difference of 418 elo points means the human rarely wins against the chess program.

Modern desktop PCs are fast enough for ASI. It's now up to the software.

*

unreality

  • Electric Dreamer
  • ****
  • 109
  • vividly dreaming inside a matrix
Re: Brain vs computer
« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2017, 05:47:19 pm »
Wow, a 64 bit desktop pc chess program now rated at 3665! Insane. It could probably destroy a human on a handheld calculator lol. I'm very interested in Stockfish, an open source project, which usually higher rated. Looks like Houdini made some recent improvements to their chess AI. IMO, tree searching is a requirement for future ASI. Stockfish uses Late Move Reductions (LMR) tree search, an enhanced alpha-beta search algorithm.

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/404FRC/

*

Art

  • At the end of the game, the King and Pawn go into the same box.
  • Global Moderator
  • *******************
  • Prometheus
  • *
  • 4625
Re: Brain vs computer
« Reply #8 on: November 28, 2017, 09:13:10 pm »
Many years ago I purchased one of the first Fidelity Electronics Chess Challenger 10 chess computers.
Beautiful walnut wood around a black and gold metal board and Red LED's to indicate Positions.

It had 10 levels. I started at 3 and was able to beat it. When I advanced to higher levels, the computer would take longer before making a move.
At Level 7 it took quite a while after the opening book moves but played a very competitive game and was difficult to beat.

Eventually after a year or so, I was able to beat it maybe once or twice out of 20 times but gameplay took so long that I opted to go back to playing around level 4 or 5 just to be able to play a fairly fast but enjoyable game. I usually won but that was really not my point.
(one doesn't improve by playing someone weaker).

While that was in the 1970's it was State-of-the-Art for it's time. Today's FREE desktop Chess games can blow me away and at the lower levels!!
If I pitted my Chess Challenger 10 against one of these Desktop games, I'll wager it would also lose! Technology and the game searching techniques definitely outclass anything from even 5 or 10 years ago!

What then does that say for the advancement of the brains in our everyday items, not to mention chatbots, A.I. and laboratory created robots?
In the world of AI, it's the thought that counts!

 


Users Online

27 Guests, 0 Users

Most Online Today: 54. Most Online Ever: 208 (August 27, 2008, 09:36:30 am)

Articles