He stated that: "Supercomputers will achieve one human brain capacity by 2010, and personal computers will do so by about 2020."
>>7972281
>Retard says something retarded
I'm shocked.
>>7972281
It happened, actually...at least the 2010 one
>>7972281
He's a madman dude. He lost his shit in the the 60s trying to come up with the singularity hypothesis.
pretty sure computers can store as much info as in a brain
He's a fantasist. Even the king of fantasists, Michio Kaku, says that he doesn't think computers will reach human intelligence for at least 1000 years. And I agree. Brains aren't computers. They don't work like machines and they aren't machines. Creating somehting more sophisticated than a human brain will take such an intense attention to detail, its staggering. Natural selection is omnipresent, we're not.
>>7972398
I don't think you know what the definition of a machine is
>>7972398
>Michio Kaku, says that he doesn't think computers will reach human intelligence for at least 1000 years.
That thing is relative effort, financial support, and quality of inventors. My Eurasian country, as I know, spend very very little amount of money to A.I. developing, so I don't wait from my country working A.I. at least in next one decade.
>>7972414
>[math] Money \propto Breakthroughs [/math]
lol
>>7972398
>Brains aren't computers.
Some species do not changed at least last one thousand of years. So ability to change him-selves not need for A.I., he can act with out it few centuries.
>>7972420
A.I is different from humans. We make them. And by the time we discover the technology to replicate human intelligence, we'll likely just use it to make us smarter, not robots.
Kurzweil's retarded but he'll actually be right about human-level AI's arrival. The consensus within the field is that it'll likely be here by 2030, at least according to last year's Puerto Rico safety summit
>>7972555
Nice trips, but:
>he'll actually be right
Kinda doubt that.
Marvin Minsky said all that needs to be said on the topic of human-level AI and the apocalypse scenarios.
>He has stated that "somewhere down the line, some computers will become more intelligent than most people," but that it's very hard to predict how fast progress will be.[38] He has cautioned that an artificial superintelligence designed to solve an innocuous mathematical problem might decide to take over all of Earth's resources to build supercomputers to help achieve its goal,[39] but believed that such negative scenarios are "hard to take seriously" because he was confident AI would go through "a lot of testing" before being deployed.[40]
>>7972281
And they have
>>7972398
A computer from the 80s can beat 99% of the human race at chess. I'm sure things are going as planned.
>>7972574
That's not true my friend. Keep doing your homework. Fuck why are people like that. Do work son.
Anyone remember the name of that equation that describes the exponential increase of processing capability over time? Anyway, I think that was the crux Kurzweil's predictions. Just the other day I was thinking about how he's already starting to look wrong. The interesting question to me is whether its just a matter of the scale of information processing or if there is more to self awareness
>>7973217
You're talking about Moore's law, which has sorta stopped, at least with CPUs
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/moores-law-really-is-dead-this-time/
>>7973225
thanks, read something of Kurzweil's awhile back and I'm pretty sure he did not account for the trajectory being altered. Maybe thats the simple reason why his machine future appears to be stalling. Or other fundamental things he could have also gotten wrong
>>7972419
We went to the moon and back without the computing power of a pocket calculator
Money is definitely proportional to breakthroughs and if you think otherwise, you are a moron
>>7973236
thats a bad analogy though, because processing power is extremely profitable, whereas moon landing is not profitable
>>7973236
thats a bad analogy though, because processing power is very profitable, and moon landing is not profitable
Whether an AI that is comparably powerful as the human brain strongly depends on the CPU architecture. Von Neumann-based CPUs (aka the normal ones) are made for straight-forward logical decisions and handling problems which can be expressed as algorithms, but not for learning/adapting to new things. Neuronal networks are way more promising and the better we understand the human brain, the better our robots will become, making this question a biological problem. I guess, Kurzweil is right with many things.
>>7973255
That man and computer have to mesh to create a super intelligence AI?
>>7973279
Mesh between AI and humans is already doing pretty well. Any physicist uses Mathematica or some computer aid to do their work, any human uses google or some source of computerized knowledge to improve their efficiency by orders of magnitude. Currently the interface is quite primitive and basic: requiring the movements of fingers and reading using eyes, but the partnership has proven quite effective.
>>7973307
good point. For AI to be at odds with humans implies not only a separate consciousness, but a motive. Thats the part that I'm honestly not gonna swallow till I see. Its too far reaching
>>7973236
>Money is definitely proportional to breakthroughs
Except it isn't, if the knowledge isn't there then it didn't matter how much money you throw at it, you won't go any where. Your analogy is misleading, a lot if the prerequisite knowledge was already there, it was just a case of putting it together (which is a deceptively tricky thing to do, hence the large budget).
>>7973279
I didn't mean man and machine have to mesh, but rather that machines get human-like (and even better) artificial "brains", maybe sophisticatedly linked to databases, so the machine would practically get infinite knowledge.
>>7972398
dude they will be growing actual brains before the end of this century
and before that they will solve the brain problem with qbits
>>7972398
>Brains aren't computers. They don't work like machines and they aren't machines.
There's nothing magical about biological material.
>>7973235
>read something of Kurzweil's awhile back and I'm pretty sure he did not account for the trajectory being altered.
He actually did. He talked about the history of paradigm shifts and how the concept of Moore's law is being left behind by 3D.
>>7973522
Please enlighten us with more random unsourced uninformed assertions.
>>7972398
>centuries meme
Name literally anything that took a thousand years of constant research to invent.
He's pushing that Transhumanism shit really hard down our throats because the 1% is funding all of his research because they want to be immortal to rule over us 99% sheeples. Fuck him.
>>7974123
date rape drugs.
>>7974123
Depends how tightly you define "consistent research". Everything today is built on what was researched in the past, it's rare we see a new field pop into existence ex nihilo.
>>7974063
>posting in a transhumanism thread
>getting mad about wild predictions
it's like you want to be angry
