8 ms·
The lack of efficiency in the brain is a trade off for adaptability. There's no doubt that we can transmit signals faster than neurons can fire but the cost is
by NeuroCoder 3y ago
The lack of efficiency in the brain is a trade off for adaptability. There's no doubt that we can transmit signals faster than neurons can fire but the cost is drastically reduced adaptation. There are micro, meso, and macroscopic networks in the brain that have different degrees of "adaptability". This isn't even considering the variety in neurons or the additional signalling cascades by non neuronal tissue. How does all of this contribute to intelligence? We don't know exactly but much of this has survived millions of years of evolution in many animals so it probably has some role.
That's not to say we can't do this with computers and less computational power. However, it's really improbable that a couple layers of adaptability on an artificial neuron network will be anywhere near sufficient to simulate intelligence in even a rodent.
- pixl97 3y agoThere are a few counters I have to this and one would be that AI could still end up 'smarter' than us, but have no innate desire to survive. The paperclip maximizer scenarios are an example of this. AI could very well create a highly destructive scenario not only for humans, but also itself because it is "intelligent" but not "aligned" with the idea of survival and evolution.
- NeuroCoder 3y agoI erased a lengthy response I was writing because I think our sentiments may actually align. In short, I'm about as certain that these computers aren't going to achieve intelligence in my lifetime as I'm certain that the world is round. But none of that means these models aren't dangerous. Misinformation and accelerating backdoor access to network infrastructures are a couple that we are already see happening.