Comments on: Cray unveils Cray XC30 supercomputer, capable of scaling to 100 petaflops

By: Sea Bass

Sea Bass — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:06:52 +0000

Good point. I believe nature accomplishes this feat because of how it processes information. I think transmission between neurons do at least two things at the same time:
Encourage the propagation of the signal by establishing more neuronal connections to pass the information.

Suppress the signal by de-coupling of neuronal connections to prevent the passing of information.

As a Turing machine, the bridge and gaps created between neurons could represent the two states of information (1′s and 0′s).

By: Doug

Doug — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:21:19 +0000

for more detail, go to http://www.top500.org/ Based on 20 years of tracking, this site states “Our projection also shows that the first Exaflop/s computer will enter the TOP500 list in 2019, and only one year later, in 2020, there will be the first notebooks with a performance of 100 Teraflop/s.”

By: Erik

Erik — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 02:32:40 +0000

We need better hardware.

That they are going to build a 100 petaflops machine on dedicated graphics hardware in a few places in three years doesn’t make it a software thing.

The average computer scientist has about 100 gigaflops on his desktop computer today. That is what matters.

Let’s say you have an algorithm and it takes an hour to execute on 100 petaflop computer. Doing the same number of calculations on that desktop computer will take more than hundred years!

Also, don’t forget it takes a human brain many years to learn how to
talk and reason properly.

By: Bri

Bri — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:03:17 +0000

Again I’ve got to bring up my jumping spider analogy. Such a small brain and yet it processes so much information. They see amazingly well. They hunt their food, so they identify things very well. They use eight legs to get around so they have lots of movement processing. All in a brain case less than the size of a pin head. I don’t think we need greater power. I think we need a radical change in architecture and programing. I also think that the fundamentals have to be somehow simple. I think the whole system of life is based more on vibrational frequencies. Maybe something akin to a holographic computer. The different brainwaves acting like carrier frequencies in FM circuits. Neurons that wire together, fire together. That’s radically different than how our computers work today.

By: melajara

melajara — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:31:34 +0000

What we are completely lacking is a reflective model of computation ensuring deep learning (and for robots, sensorimotor scheme compositions) through largely self programmed subservient modules.

This is yet another shortcoming of current IA, ignoring the grounding problem and the formidable pruning it allows in combinatorial composition of internal representations.

So much brute power, so shallow thought invested.

Who are the Turing or von Neumann of our generation?

By: melajara

melajara — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:19:45 +0000

Please, before attempting this, let’s adequately simulate a bee brain with its sensorium. I’m not sure any team is able to do it yet, notwithstanding the forthcoming availability of 100 petaflops computers!

By: Gabor

Gabor — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:20:21 +0000

This question is very tricky because we do need more power to get strong AI and we do need (much) better software, too, but I believe most people ignore another two ingredients to achieve a high level consciousness. One is parallelism and the other is all the above achieved in a relatively small space. The first one is easy as all we need is more cores working in unison, maybe somewhere on the scale of our own number of neurons (100 Billion or more). Simulating 100 Billion neurons on a computer that works in series for the most part will create an extremely smart “Watson” but not an intelligent consciousness because the delay between the processes do to the speed limit (light speed). And the light speed is exactly why we need to achieve this parallelism within a relatively small space that is my second point. Then again, your question was AI and not consciousness. On AI, I suppose you mean strong AI which I believe we are very close to have enough “power” just mostly lacking in software.

By: Mr.X

Mr.X — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:06:57 +0000

@Dr.Pratt: You’re not a doctor, I hope.

By: Dr.Pratt

Dr.Pratt — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:46:38 +0000

Your brain allows consciousness, it does not creat it. There is almost no power at all, in the human brain.

By: Gabriel

Gabriel — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:04:55 +0000

In his “growth of supercomputer power” chart, Kurzweil notably predicts that supercomputers will have the power “required for human brain functional simulation” by 2013…

By: Gorden Russell

Gorden Russell — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:00:47 +0000

Thanks guys.

By: renzo canepari

renzo canepari — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:37:31 +0000

one hundred petaflops is 10 to the 17th. The highest number is saw in Singularity was 10 to the 19th. We’re getting real close to the requisite hardware–if Ray Kurzweil is right.

By: Mr.X

Mr.X — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:07:36 +0000

@Gorden:
It won’t become an AI because of power, but because of better software.It’s the software that’s lacking.

By: Daworox

Daworox — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:05:59 +0000

Depends on a software ;)

By: PirateRo

PirateRo — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:59:41 +0000

Wow……..

By: Gorden Russell

Gorden Russell — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:46:10 +0000

So just how powerful does a computer have to be to become an AI?