9 ms·

> Musk explained what he meant by saying that computers can communicate at "a trillion bits per second", while humans, whose main communication method is typing

> Musk explained what he meant by saying that computers can communicate at "a trillion bits per second", while humans, whose main communication method is typing with their fingers via a mobile device, can do about 10 bits per second. Humans communicate in much more complex ways than computers. Facial expressions, intonation, language, body language, etc. All things we do not quite understand. Elon Musk is a little arrogant due to his success in business and likes to make 'fun' predictions based on his very limited understanding of whatever field he happens to be talking about. He sounds like an eager undergrad student that tries to demonstrate his genius to his professors and the class. I don't understand how anyone can take him seriously in technical fields.

pixie_ 10y ago
They take him seriously because his next move is to often start a company like CyborgX. In which he'll hire the best people in whatever technical field is relevant and have them figure out the details. Space, solar, cars, tunnels, etc..
LeifCarrotson 10y ago
> Humans communicate in much more complex ways than computers. Facial expressions, intonation, language, body language, etc. All things we do not quite understand. That's the medium - but how many bits of information, after compression, are exchanged in a conversation between humans? It's true that facial expressions and body language are difficult to measure with a camera, that intonation and speech are difficult to measure with a microphone, and that duplicating them with an artificial face on a monitor, a robot, or a speaker are all very difficult programs for humans to write. But this isn't what Musk was trying to communicate. He's saying that the amount of information contained in the combination of these human communication mechanisms can be compressed to about 10 bits per second. Imagine us talking for a minute, compressed to a movie script. Your wetware could easily use my expressions to come up with an estimate of my happiness, sincerity, confidence, truthfulness, sarcasm (and so on) on a scale of 1-10. These values might change from sentence to sentence. If you're very observant, in 60 seconds you might get 10 estimates for each of a dozen emotions with 3-bit fidelity from these observations - only a few bits per second of actual information transferred. And I might be creating sound waves that could be recorded at very high bit rates digitally, but aside from a one-time characterization of my voice, I would perhaps speak 200 English words in that minute. 200 words, averaging 4.5 characters each, with a 20% compression ratio, is only on the order of 4 bytes per second. And most of that is overhead for grammar. Or imagine meeting two aliens in a wormhole/portal that's only going to be open for 60 seconds. You attempt to convey as much about our society to them as possible vocally, while I'll attempt to use a computer. Afterwards, you might be able to have politely (to a human) said "Hello, we come in peace" and smiled, be able to describe the sound of their unintelligible speech, and be able to make a sketch of their appearance. I'd have recorded the entire exchange in 4k/60 fps video, from which we could probably reconstruct the anatomy under their equivalent of skin, and my only communication lag would have been gesturing that I want to give them computer equipment containing Wikipedia and Archive.org and whatever else I can download, transferring it at a few pounds of multi-terabyte hard drives a second, and get computer equipment back at the same rate. Or if you want to remove the sneakernet exploit, fine, we can hook up a Thunderbolt cable and send it across, or even just play individual frames of text or images on high-resolution monitors and record that video. From that, we could learn an incalculable amount about each others' species. From a minute of talking, we would learn next to nothing. The medium is irrelevant. The question is how much information can be exchanged. And computers win that with no contest.
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  > how many bits of information, after compression, are exchanged in a conversation between humans? It depends on the listener. Billions of bits are encoded, but if you are only listening for one thing you will only decode a single bit. A good listener can see a whole film in a single look. A good speaker can encode a while film in a few words. A good couple can exchange volumes in a few moments.
  - lgas 10y ago
    Speakers can not encode a whole film in a few words -- they can compress it to a few words, but this is most definitely a very lossy process.
    - erikpukinskis 10y ago
      You just need a big dictionary you can encode any content in a few bits. I'm talking about lossless compression only.
- mlmlmasd 10y ago
  > That's the medium - but how many bits of information, after compression, are exchanged in a conversation between humans? We don't really know, but it is much more than 10 bits a second. > He's saying that the amount of information contained in the combination of these human communication mechanisms can be compressed to about 10 bits per second. No what he said is humans type, input text through a keyboard, on average at the speed of 10 bits a second. > Imagine us talking for a minute, compressed to a movie script. Your wetware could easily use my expressions to come up with an estimate of my happiness, sincerity, confidence, truthfulness, sarcasm (and so on) on a scale of 1-10. These values might change from sentence to sentence. If you're very observant, in 60 seconds you might get 10 estimates for each of a dozen emotions with 3-bit fidelity from these observations - only a few bits per second of actual information transferred. You're assuming all of our communication happens through our consciousness, which is just not true. People don't consciously evaluate each other's facial expressions and use formulas to draw a conclusion. > I would perhaps speak 200 English words in that minute. 200 words, averaging 4.5 characters each, with a 20% compression ratio, is only on the order of 4 bytes per second. And most of that is overhead for grammar. Most of the words people use are 'overhead for grammar'? Sorry, this is just false. Also keep in mind that human language is very complex, we do not understand how it works. Our processing of language does not happen in our consciousness. > The medium is irrelevant. The question is how much information can be exchanged. And computers win that with no contest. You have no idea how much information humans exchange. Your view of human thought and communication is very simplistic. These are things which we (bleeding edge science) do not understand yet. Furthermore, there is no contest because there is no purpose in any kind of contest, computers don't win or lose, they are used for different purposes.
grovegames 10y ago
Really, because the vast majority of my communication happens over phone, text or the interent. Micro expressions don't exist in these medium at all, and are therefore not nearly as important as you're giving them credit. Critical thinking is important, but don't mix that with sour grapes.
- gens 10y ago
  Tone...
- mlmlmasd 10y ago
  Language exists in this medium - language that computers cannot mimic or understand the way humans do. There is also intonation, pauses, etc.
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    > anguage that computers cannot mimic or understand the way humans do Yet.
  - grovegames 10y ago
    Tone, intonation, and pauses add color to the language, and are by no means required. Think of them like spices, which add to the flavour, but not to the nutritional value or substance of the language. I have never had a thought I couldn't express with written words. Tone, intonation, and pauses can round out a story, or make communication slightly more succinct, but language exist both with and without these. And again, these are not required. And concerning the computers ability, a computer can capture microexpressions that we may miss by looking away to collect our thoughts or to remember something, etc... Computers can do this now, and there is no reason to expect this gets worse. As someone who is likely on the spectrum, I look forward to the day when a computer can tell me when people are bored of me talking to them. I'd like that very much.
castratikron 10y ago
>Elon Musk is a little arrogant due to his success in business and likes to make 'fun' predictions based on his very limited understanding of whatever field he happens to be talking about. He sounds like an eager undergrad student that tries to demonstrate his genius to his professors and the class. This actually reminds me more of Thiel than Musk.
accountface 10y ago
>Elon Musk is a little arrogant due to his success in business and likes to make 'fun' predictions based on his very limited understanding of whatever field he happens to be talking about. He sounds like an eager undergrad student that tries to demonstrate his genius to his professors and the class. I don't understand how anyone can take him seriously in technical fields. This is a fair assessment, but I wonder if not being constricted by cynicism is more of a pro than a con in the long run.
devopsproject 10y ago
he sends rockets into space and is creating self driving electric cars. what other technical feats are needed before you can take him seriously?
- mlmlmasd 10y ago
  There is a difference between building something and paying others to build something.
  - devopsproject 10y ago
    So the question remains: What must he do to prove his technical skill?
    - tnzn 10y ago
      Starting with not saying things about subjects he does not understand like they are the absolute truth would be a starter
gnoim 10y ago
> I don't understand how anyone can take him seriously in technical fields. Capital, and connections... Seems he's totally misunderstanding what intelligence is : Processing trillions of bits of (high bandwidth) input .. conducting 10 bits of highly efficient and intelligent output (low bandwidth). I don't think anyone who fundamentally understands intelligence and embodies it, takes any high bandwidth or foolish output seriously.

pixie_ 10y ago

They take him seriously because his next move is to often start a company like CyborgX. In which he'll hire the best people in whatever technical field is relevant and have them figure out the details. Space, solar, cars, tunnels, etc..

LeifCarrotson 10y ago

> Humans communicate in much more complex ways than computers. Facial expressions, intonation, language, body language, etc. All things we do not quite understand. That's the medium - but how many bits of information, after compression, are exchanged in a conversation between humans? It's true that facial expressions and body language are difficult to measure with a camera, that intonation and speech are difficult to measure with a microphone, and that duplicating them with an artificial face on a monitor, a robot, or a speaker are all very difficult programs for humans to write. But this isn't what Musk was trying to communicate. He's saying that the amount of information contained in the combination of these human communication mechanisms can be compressed to about 10 bits per second. Imagine us talking for a minute, compressed to a movie script. Your wetware could easily use my expressions to come up with an estimate of my happiness, sincerity, confidence, truthfulness, sarcasm (and so on) on a scale of 1-10. These values might change from sentence to sentence. If you're very observant, in 60 seconds you might get 10 estimates for each of a dozen emotions with 3-bit fidelity from these observations - only a few bits per second of actual information transferred. And I might be creating sound waves that could be recorded at very high bit rates digitally, but aside from a one-time characterization of my voice, I would perhaps speak 200 English words in that minute. 200 words, averaging 4.5 characters each, with a 20% compression ratio, is only on the order of 4 bytes per second. And most of that is overhead for grammar. Or imagine meeting two aliens in a wormhole/portal that's only going to be open for 60 seconds. You attempt to convey as much about our society to them as possible vocally, while I'll attempt to use a computer. Afterwards, you might be able to have politely (to a human) said "Hello, we come in peace" and smiled, be able to describe the sound of their unintelligible speech, and be able to make a sketch of their appearance. I'd have recorded the entire exchange in 4k/60 fps video, from which we could probably reconstruct the anatomy under their equivalent of skin, and my only communication lag would have been gesturing that I want to give them computer equipment containing Wikipedia and Archive.org and whatever else I can download, transferring it at a few pounds of multi-terabyte hard drives a second, and get computer equipment back at the same rate. Or if you want to remove the sneakernet exploit, fine, we can hook up a Thunderbolt cable and send it across, or even just play individual frames of text or images on high-resolution monitors and record that video. From that, we could learn an incalculable amount about each others' species. From a minute of talking, we would learn next to nothing. The medium is irrelevant. The question is how much information can be exchanged. And computers win that with no contest.

erikpukinskis 10y ago
> how many bits of information, after compression, are exchanged in a conversation between humans? It depends on the listener. Billions of bits are encoded, but if you are only listening for one thing you will only decode a single bit. A good listener can see a whole film in a single look. A good speaker can encode a while film in a few words. A good couple can exchange volumes in a few moments.
- lgas 10y ago
  Speakers can not encode a whole film in a few words -- they can compress it to a few words, but this is most definitely a very lossy process.
  - erikpukinskis 10y ago
    You just need a big dictionary you can encode any content in a few bits. I'm talking about lossless compression only.
mlmlmasd 10y ago
> That's the medium - but how many bits of information, after compression, are exchanged in a conversation between humans? We don't really know, but it is much more than 10 bits a second. > He's saying that the amount of information contained in the combination of these human communication mechanisms can be compressed to about 10 bits per second. No what he said is humans type, input text through a keyboard, on average at the speed of 10 bits a second. > Imagine us talking for a minute, compressed to a movie script. Your wetware could easily use my expressions to come up with an estimate of my happiness, sincerity, confidence, truthfulness, sarcasm (and so on) on a scale of 1-10. These values might change from sentence to sentence. If you're very observant, in 60 seconds you might get 10 estimates for each of a dozen emotions with 3-bit fidelity from these observations - only a few bits per second of actual information transferred. You're assuming all of our communication happens through our consciousness, which is just not true. People don't consciously evaluate each other's facial expressions and use formulas to draw a conclusion. > I would perhaps speak 200 English words in that minute. 200 words, averaging 4.5 characters each, with a 20% compression ratio, is only on the order of 4 bytes per second. And most of that is overhead for grammar. Most of the words people use are 'overhead for grammar'? Sorry, this is just false. Also keep in mind that human language is very complex, we do not understand how it works. Our processing of language does not happen in our consciousness. > The medium is irrelevant. The question is how much information can be exchanged. And computers win that with no contest. You have no idea how much information humans exchange. Your view of human thought and communication is very simplistic. These are things which we (bleeding edge science) do not understand yet. Furthermore, there is no contest because there is no purpose in any kind of contest, computers don't win or lose, they are used for different purposes.

grovegames 10y ago

Really, because the vast majority of my communication happens over phone, text or the interent. Micro expressions don't exist in these medium at all, and are therefore not nearly as important as you're giving them credit. Critical thinking is important, but don't mix that with sour grapes.

gens 10y ago
Tone...
mlmlmasd 10y ago
Language exists in this medium - language that computers cannot mimic or understand the way humans do. There is also intonation, pauses, etc.
- sqeaky 10y ago
  > anguage that computers cannot mimic or understand the way humans do Yet.
- grovegames 10y ago
  Tone, intonation, and pauses add color to the language, and are by no means required. Think of them like spices, which add to the flavour, but not to the nutritional value or substance of the language. I have never had a thought I couldn't express with written words. Tone, intonation, and pauses can round out a story, or make communication slightly more succinct, but language exist both with and without these. And again, these are not required. And concerning the computers ability, a computer can capture microexpressions that we may miss by looking away to collect our thoughts or to remember something, etc... Computers can do this now, and there is no reason to expect this gets worse. As someone who is likely on the spectrum, I look forward to the day when a computer can tell me when people are bored of me talking to them. I'd like that very much.

castratikron 10y ago

>Elon Musk is a little arrogant due to his success in business and likes to make 'fun' predictions based on his very limited understanding of whatever field he happens to be talking about. He sounds like an eager undergrad student that tries to demonstrate his genius to his professors and the class. This actually reminds me more of Thiel than Musk.

accountface 10y ago

devopsproject 10y ago

he sends rockets into space and is creating self driving electric cars. what other technical feats are needed before you can take him seriously?

mlmlmasd 10y ago
There is a difference between building something and paying others to build something.
- devopsproject 10y ago
  So the question remains: What must he do to prove his technical skill?
  - tnzn 10y ago
    Starting with not saying things about subjects he does not understand like they are the absolute truth would be a starter

gnoim 10y ago

> I don't understand how anyone can take him seriously in technical fields. Capital, and connections... Seems he's totally misunderstanding what intelligence is : Processing trillions of bits of (high bandwidth) input .. conducting 10 bits of highly efficient and intelligent output (low bandwidth). I don't think anyone who fundamentally understands intelligence and embodies it, takes any high bandwidth or foolish output seriously.