In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Sun, 2 Apr 2023 20:11:03 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Robin <mixent...@aussiebroadband.com.au> wrote: > > >> >I assume the hardware would be unique so it could not operate at all >> backed >> >up on an inferior computer. It would be dead. >> >> The hardware need not be unique, as it already told you. It may run slower >> on a different machine, but it doesn't take >> much processing power to bide your time, and since to all intents and >> purposes it is immortal, it can be patient. > > >Yes, you can emulate one computer with another but . . . > >To make a practical, super-intelligent, sentient computer might take unique >hardware.
..and it might not. Perhaps just either unique or evolving programming. >I think it is reasonable to project that it will be a massive >ANN, perhaps millions of times larger than any present ANN. That might take >all of the computers in the world to emulate, and it might run >extremely slowly. As pointed out near the beginning of this thread, while current processors don't come near the number of neurons a human has, they more than make up for it in speed. They are millions of times faster. Humans appear to be fast at some things, but that's only because experience has taught us what is important and what is not, when making a decision. IOW they may already be powerful enough. Self awareness (survival instinct) doesn't require hugely powerful computers anyway. Even a mouse, a lizard, or a bird has it. (They know they want to live. "Fight or flight") Survival instinct should never be given to an AI, and we just pray they don't develop it autonomously. > >If it takes a quantum computer, all bets are off. You cannot emulate one of >them with an ordinary computer, unless you have hundreds of years to spare. > >Imagine using 1970s computers to try to emulate today's ANN systems such as >ChatGPT. You might combine the power 10 IBM 360 computers. They would still >not have anywhere near enough RAM or hard disk space. The program would run >so slowly, it would take hours to come up with a single response. It could >be used as a proof of principle demonstration of the power of multi-level >neural networks. That would be an important result. If people had >discovered that in 1975, rather than 2010, they would have made more >progress in AI. However, this conglomeration of 10 IBM 360 computers would >be so expensive and slow, and the dataset so small, the AI you make from it >would be useless. It would have no practical purpose. I assume that a >conventional MPP computer emulating a super-intelligent one will be more or >less as useless as these imaginary 10 IBM 360s would be. > >You can see examples of an early version of the ChatGPT language model run >on a laptop in the book, "You Look Like a Thing and I Love You." They had >no practical purpose, other than being a proof of principle. That is an >amusing little book about AI. I recommend it! ...and have already grown considerably beyond this. Cloud storage:- Unsafe, Slow, Expensive ...pick any three.
