Human have 86,000M and rats have 200M cortex neurons (x430)
> https://chatbotslife.com/is-gpt-3-the-adam-of-natural-langua...
"... the human brain has about 60 trillion parameters or about 300x more parameters than GPT-3"
We are approaching a rat brain processing power so consciousness should really be discussed ...
An atom has a few dozen parameters. Computers do not model the atoms of the brain, of which there would then need to be 10^many parameters.
This is only relevant because of the bullshit identification of really-existing neurones with a set of model paraterms that do not model them. It doesnt matter how many I have.
I can have a model of my sofa with a trillion parameters, that doesn't mean my PC will be comfortable to sit on.
For a system X to emulate a system Y, ie., participate causally in the relevant ways, it must be relevantly similar. Counting parameters here is meaningless.
If are you making a statement about a sensor precision, like eyesight or skin touch, it does affect consciousness but not negate it.
Anything short of that has to be saying that X is "like" Y in some relevant way. And here this has nothing to do with parameter count, complexity, or anything of this kind.
Here "X" has to be behaviourally similar to "Y".
Animal intelligence is essentially entirely concerned with managing animal bodies and their relationship to the environment; and secondarily, the environment. To do this requires a body (etc.).
No mathematical model over a dataset can emulate animal intelligence, because a mathematical model has no behaviour. A mathematical model can describe an animal, but a description is not an emulation: the formula E=MC^2 isnt a nuclear explosion.
A digital silicon machine instantiates a mathematical formula with an osciliating electric field. There is nothing about this electrical osciliation which behaves anything like animal intelligence.
Exactly! That is exactly what is done by a neuron, the brain building block. So I hope you can see why I think an AI can be close enough to simulate the brain, as we still not know the exact border of intelligence (and thus we may be closer than we think).
For sure, if it does, then it isn't relevant.
The "duck" here is a person, and "walking and talking" are literal. Where is the machine that participates in my environment, with me, imagines/believes/advices/speculates/cares about what I am doing? (And so on).
There is no such machine.
The "quacking" we have isn't the quacking of a duck. It's a stupid buzzer that has been mashed too many times and a foolish audience who has never thought much about the sound of a duck.
But we can bound computing power of any physical system if that system is doing computation that erases information due to the second law of thermodynamics. Erasure of useful information must increase entropy.
The Landauer limit [0] suggests that a brain consuming 20W at 36C can carry out no more than ~1e22 irreversible operations per second (20W / (309.2K * Boltzmann constant * ln(2))).
That bounds brains at ~1e21 FLOP/s (~10 bits erased per FLOP). The best supercomputer right now does ~4e17 FLOP/s.
That's log2(1e21 / 4e17) ~11 doublings of computing power until supercomputers will be faster than thermodynamic maximum of FLOPS power of brains.
Assuming we keep up the doubling time below 3 years, we will have supercomputers faster than a human brain in 3 * 11 ~ 33 years.