Comments
Deformero t1_iuqiyrj wrote
Yeah, it might be great if ever commertialized.
Shelfrock77 t1_iuqkhu0 wrote
Have some faith in the engineers in those chip factories, god damn, just be impressed at how quick it’s going. I can’t imagine being a cutting edge engineer and hearing people say “bUt iTz N0t cOmMeRCiaLiZ3d yEt”. I often say this to people, it’s only 2022 and AI is hatching quicker and quicker. Who knows maybe AI designed this chip and the human engineers took credit for it.
neo101b t1_iuqucn7 wrote
My brother thinks none of this will happen in our life time, I keep telling him we will have a GTX 4080 compressed into the size of a cell phone, when they have the materials which run faster and cooler than the current tec.
I give it less than 10 years.
ninjasaid13 t1_ius4iqo wrote
The physical limits of computing is:
> At 20 °C (room temperature, or 293.15 K), the Landauer limit represents an energy of approximately 0.0175 eV, or 2.805 zJ. Theoretically, room-temperature computer memory operating at the Landauer limit could be changed at a rate of one billion bits per second (1 Gbit/s) with energy being converted to heat in the memory media at the rate of only 2.805 trillionths of a watt (that is, at a rate of only 2.805 pJ/s).
Which means trillions of times less power than a lightbulb for a gigabyte internet is the theoretical limit.
Maybe zettabit/s computing power on a lightbulb of energy.
blueSGL t1_ius7e2x wrote
Started reading the comment thinking that you were explaining why it's not going to be possible, finished reading the comment happy that we are no where near the theoretical limits and that there is a massive amount of ground still to cover.
Cuissonbake t1_ius77ju wrote
Needs to be smaller than that and portable energy sources are the main bottle neck still in regards to reducing the size of computers. Best we got is carrying a battery the size of a suitcase that can charge using solar panels. Idk how we can make energy sources smaller than that. I hate being dependant on the electrical grid.
And if you want to travel they limit the battery size on planes that you can bring for safety reasons. So there's still a lot to figure out in terms of energy sources for portable devices of that caliber.
[deleted] t1_iuudv9n wrote
[deleted]
neo101b t1_iuuh8ck wrote
It is, could you imagine a mega drive or amiga computer in the size of your phone, because it can emulate any games on them.
I can't wait for the future.
Deformero t1_iuqkt1n wrote
Sure, you are right, I'm just sayin that this is not first time there's revolutionairy new technology for chips that promises something extrodinary. There's been a dozen since 2016 and i havent seen any of them implemented in practice.
capsicum_fondler t1_iuqlnmi wrote
Sure, but since 2016 it's been about better versions of ordinary chips for ordinary computation.
Now we're using chips more or less optimized for ordinary computation to do AI computation.
Now we're finding ways to optimize for AI instead. There's ample ground for innovation.
Shelfrock77 t1_iuqly7z wrote
Right, exactly.
Deformero t1_iuqnbn8 wrote
[deleted] t1_iuqycck wrote
In what way does this prove them wrong
z0rm t1_iuqocw1 wrote
Because 2016 was 6 years ago. Taking something from discovery to full scale commercialization takes decades. Graphene for example was only discovered in 2004 but it's in early stages of commercialization right now. So...just wait.
Baron_Samedi_ t1_ius3th3 wrote
It takes longer than you might imagine to go from research breakthrough to industrial production 10 -15 years, sometimes.
duffmanhb t1_iuqnpuv wrote
If it has use, it will be commercialized. The problem is often these things in the lab show a proof of concept that "can maybe" do something great. But the moment that they show it has an advantage over the rest, it'll be miniaturized and fabricated. The problem is often they may have one unique strength, but it's not enough to outweigh what we already have.
Black_RL t1_iur6ld1 wrote
New tech always blows my mind with this, compared to the older one it’s better and consumes less resources.
Happens all the time!
turnip_burrito t1_iuqkbba wrote
Physical realizations of neural networks are exciting.
The_Final_Ka-tet t1_iuqumtf wrote
I've (very privately) thought for quite awhile now that quantum computing might be the missing requisite for true artificial intelligence. There is a theory that one of the most basic functions of an individual cell is the ability to sustain quantum decoherence inside the boundaries of the cell walls. If this is correct, which I think it probably is although there is still plenty of room for doubt, then it stands to reason that a quantum computer would be a more correct equivalent stand-in for the kind of biological hardware that intelligence requires.
Looking forward to the day when I can read about the work done by the people who tried it. I'm probably wrong, but I just really want to know.
turnip_burrito t1_iur5v9m wrote
Cells are pretty warm. It would be difficult to maintain any sort of quantum coherence at these temps on the spatial scale of a whole cell. It is constantly interacting with its environment and will decohere "instantly". At best, you can hope for quantum characteristics to be maintained in only subcellular pieces of it like chlorophyll, and for an extremely short time. Networks of neurons are much larger, so they are vastly more likely to operate classically (non-quantum). Maaaaybe small small micronetworks in the brain leverage quantum effects, or consciousness does, somewhere, but I'd need to see strong evidence to entertain the idea further regarding human scale intelligence. Until then, classical physics seems a more likely bet.
Tl,dr: it's a fun idea but seems unlikely that human level intelligence must rely on quantum physics. You may still find use of quantum processors in artificial intelligence, however.
The_Final_Ka-tet t1_iurb1pi wrote
I know there is pushback and there absolutely should be.
That said, I don't think I'll wholly give up this line of thinking until someone is able to demonstrate that quantum physics has no role in evolution. I think it is the only even potentially viable explanation I've seen so far for some of evolution's gaps, like the Cambrian explosion. I also haven't seen an explanation for a mechanism that would allow lactose intolerant bacteria, for just one of several great specific examples, to evolve the gene needed for lactose digestion when in the presence of only lactose as a food source. This experiment has been repeated many times and the same thing happens every time. Around 3% of the bacteria seem to spontaneously evolve the genes needed to digest lactose. No other theory, in my humble opinion, has shown promise in explaining it. It shouldn't happen, and yet it does. Why?
Anyway, there are leaps between these basics I'm trying to describe and the bigger picture thinking I've arrived at concerning quantum physics and AI and, as I said above, I am probably wrong. I do have a gut feeling here that I'm missing something important and, hopefully, eventually, I will be able to learn what it is. I am simply excited to see what the truth ends up being ever since I was first inspired to think about this stuff by JohnJoe McFadden's book Quantum Evolution. It took me years to finish it even one time and I've read some dissenting opinions on his work, but I don't feel anyone has sufficiently cast serious doubt on it either. I can't shake the feeling that the author is onto something profound.
If consciousness is an emergent property of quantum physical characteristics in the constituent parts of a neural network, then I might be right. If it's not, then I'm wrong. We'll see. 🤞😁
[deleted] t1_iurkybx wrote
It's kinda obvious that everything is effected by quantum physics in some way we just don't know how. I think that issue that some people have including me is that why is the world so seemingly so stable as a whole. By quantum logic things even at our scale should be teleporting quite often . So the only two things are possible. Either there is no quantum effects in biology or there must be at some scale have a sudden extreme increase in stability.
The_Final_Ka-tet t1_iurqvgp wrote
I really think it must be the latter.
turnip_burrito t1_iuts85v wrote
The more massive an object (for simplification, say a single particle) is in quantum mechanics, the less likely you are to observe tunneling/"teleportation". This is calculable using quantum mechanics, so not so mysterious.
It's not a sudden transition from quantum to classical. There is a continuous transition away from quantum effects being noticeable as you move up the mass/size scale. At large object scales, the resulting decoherence removes our ability to observe superposition, and mass removes the noticeability of tunneling.
[deleted] t1_iuu5lm5 wrote
How unlikely is it that I will suddenly be teleported to the other side of the world.
turnip_burrito t1_iuu9p7c wrote
Zero, basically. Think of it as similar to the chance of winning the lottery billions of times in a row. Even if you waited from the big bang until now, it wouldn't have happened even once.
[deleted] t1_iuucd9f wrote
How small do you have to go for the odds of teleportation being 50/50 or happening often? Blood cells are a lot smaller than a person but the odds are much higher then why don't we hear people's blood being mixed or removed because of quantum physics?
turnip_burrito t1_iuuey6g wrote
I don't know how small you'd have to go to see 50/50 odds. But I can suggest how a physicist would initially continue approaching the problem, if you're interested.
Blood cells are still too big to see these effects. Typically in labs you strive to measure these quantum effects with roughly atom-scale things: electrons, nuclei, and atoms are all less than 10^(-9) meters large. In contrast, red blood cellsare roughly 10^(-6) or 10^(-5) meters, so still at least 10 thousand or more times longer. Humans are larger still, order 1 meter. By volume, the difference is even larger. To have objects made of many objects tunnel, you need every particle inside it to tunnel. The chance of 1 particle tunneling is much higher than 10, and enormously higher than 100, etc.
If you're interested in learning how to calculate it though, here's a place to get started: you need to solve Schrodinger's equation for a particle of some given energy, and a potential wall. When you solve the equation, you get a wave function. The probability of seeing tunneling is given by integrating the squared amplitude of this complex-valued wavefunction over the region of space you want to see it in (other side of the wall) and dividing it by the integral of the squared magnitude of the wavefunction over all space.
The electric fields outside of your thing you want to see tunnel are responsible for producing the potential barriers. This could be things like liquids, vascular walls, other blood cells, objects in the liquid, etc. The larger the potential barriers are between where you are now and where you want to be, the exponetially lower the probability of tunneling across the barrier is.
For another reference, see this: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/223277/if-quantum-tunneling-is-possible-is-there-a-maximum-thickness-of-material-a-par
An introductory textbook to quantum mechanics like Griffiths' will also help.
Hedgehogz_Mom t1_iursa19 wrote
Prove im not tho. some days....
blueSGL t1_ius7u17 wrote
> Either there is no quantum effects in biology
Human smell perception is governed by quantum spin-residual information
or is that something different and I'm missunderstanding?
Baron_Samedi_ t1_ius4osn wrote
>Cells are pretty warm. It would be difficult to maintain any sort of quantum coherence at these temps on the spatial scale of a whole cell.
How does it follow that just because we cannot achieve the desired quantum effects at these temps with our current tech, 3.7 billion years of evolution could not?
turnip_burrito t1_iutqa1d wrote
It doesn't. It just makes it less believable, in the absence of compelling opposing evidence.
smolbrain7 t1_iur70qw wrote
As far as I understand all quantum brain stuff is complete bollocks lol. It doesn't matter on such big scale
ninjasaid13 t1_ius6tl9 wrote
Putting quantum behind intelligence doesn't mean it's automatically better, I'm not sure what benefits it could add for general intelligence, it could improve it maybe but not necessarily create it.
[deleted] t1_iuue74k wrote
[deleted]
turnip_burrito t1_iuughu9 wrote
I agree. Multimodal data integration as you've mentioned is very promising. Even moreso when you allow active environmental exploration.
tedd321 t1_iuqo9ye wrote
That’s awesome!
The singularity is nearer…
People are trying to keep it from flooding over, but it’s inevitable.
End slavery forever!
TheSingulatarian t1_iurnnw9 wrote
Just as long as you don't try to enslave super intelligence. That could be quite dangerous.
tedd321 t1_iurr4i4 wrote
We can worry about that when we get there… need to have super intelligence first
Vergil25 t1_iuqkwp8 wrote
see technological evolves ezponentially
jb275 t1_iuscr06 wrote
roboz go up up more ezpotentially. single is near here
Mortal-Region t1_iuqrrpn wrote
One of Lex Fridman's best podcasts was an interview with Jeff Shainline, one of the people involved in this research. It's a must-watch for all singularitarians.
prototyperspective t1_iuqt6zd wrote
Is it at this point relevant to mention in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_neural_network?
Sandbar101 t1_iur69y8 wrote
This feels sensationalized
ihateshadylandlords t1_iuqtpio wrote
Very cool, would love to see where this goes.
!RemindMe 6 years
RemindMeBot t1_iuqtsp6 wrote
I will be messaging you in 6 years on 2028-11-02 10:54:45 UTC to remind you of this link
2 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) ^(delete this message to hide from others.)
| ^(Info) | ^(Custom) | ^(Your Reminders) | ^(Feedback) |
|---|
vernes1978 t1_iuqyylm wrote
Look, these are articles I can understand why people write stories about how AI is going to split the sea and wipe it's butt with general relativity.
I mean, it's still horrible fiction.
But even I can see that if you'd manage to duplicate a rat brain using this tech, you have a rat working 30.000 times faster then a human brain.
These are hard numbers you can spin a tale around.
I just don't see why you'd write fiction as soon as AI can generate art of a lady with 2 different eyes and 11 and a half fingers and a hint of a third arm.
Anyway, cool article.
miasma-elegante t1_iuqk0cn wrote
praise to karras
and the builder
IronJackk t1_iurennv wrote
So I could play chess and solve math equations before you even realize you stubbed your toe?
onyxengine t1_iutnu4g wrote
Going to need some of that wire in my own brain
AylaDoesntLikeYou OP t1_iuqg6ux wrote
"Artificial-intelligence systems are increasingly limited by the hardware used to implement them. Now comes a new superconducting photonic circuit that mimics the links between brain cells—burning just 0.3 percent of the energy of its human counterparts while operating some 30,000 times as fast."