A neuromorphic supercomputer called DeepSouth will be capable of 228 trillion synaptic operations per second, which is on par with the estimated number of operations in the human brain

Edit: updated link, no paywall

    • @barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      527 months ago

      To actually simulate a brain you’d have to put its connections and weights in there and AFAIK that data simply doesn’t exist. Not even the connections.

      What this is is a computer capable of simulating neuronal nets of the size of the brain… and AFAIU only the synaptic network. There’s a hell a lot more going on in actual wetware, think neurotransmitters, plasticity, gene expression changing on the fly etc. To actually simulate a brain you’d either have to have a scan that’s rather inconceivable to get in the necessary detail, or you need to grow it virtually from virtual DNA, simulate the development of the whole body and an environment for it to develop properly as our genome expects environmental stimulus, a mould to grow in.

      • @0ops@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        15
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        That’s pretty much what I got from the article, that they managed to build a computer that theoretically has the horsepower to compare to a human brain, but specifically what they want to use it for was more vague in the article than the headline implies.

        Your last paragraph is spot on imo if they are going to straight-up simulate intelligence. People underestimate how much “training” we go through ourselves. Millions of years of evolution training our instincts encoded in dna + training through a body with dozens of senses (input data) collecting data 24/7, that can manipulate itself and interact with the environment (output data) and observe the results (more input data) for at least a few years starting from embryo.

        • @barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          47 months ago

          Millions of years of evolution training our instincts encoded in dna

          Kinda OT regarding simulating something if you have the DNA, but evolution itself learned how to learn, it’s not just random chance: If you take the natural error rate during DNA transcription it’s quite high, error correction processes then take it down to practically nothing, and after that randomness is again introduced, in a controlled manner, to still allow mutations – our genome could in principle spit out clones with no mutations whatsoever but it doesn’t because being adaptive is beneficial for the species. That is, evolution is not a random walk through the possibilities, “throw shit at the wall and see what sticks”, but an algorithm deliberately employing randomness to introduce variety when it has reason to believe that it’s beneficial.

          And ironically evolutionary scientists don’t like to hear that, physiologists have a hard time getting through to them. “We don’t care whether that mechanism is theoretically unnecessary to explain that stuff evolves and adapts, it’s what’s happening in the actual body, here, have a microscope”. And while the genome using deliberate strategies to create mutations may indeed be strictly speaking unnecessary, from a computational POV it’s way more efficient: Makes no sense to fuck with mitochondrial DNA if your bird has trouble drinking nectar, better mess around with the beak.

      • prole
        link
        fedilink
        English
        77 months ago

        As soon as I saw the word “wetware” my mind started picturing all of this like some shit you’d see in a Cronenberg film lol

          • prole
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            I, for one, welcome our hideously deformed, puss-dripping, biological computer overlords.

            Long live the new flesh!

        • @SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          9
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Literally no one can stop you from killing yourself. You don’t require approval from anyone. I’m not sure why this makes you so angry.

          I tell people not to kill themselves because I am a former suicidal person who doesn’t want people to make a choice they cannot undo, not because I want anything from them. If you’re totally sold, it’s trivially easy to end your own life.

          I’ll disagree with you, sure, but that’s rather a moot point.

          • @cjsolx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            27 months ago

            I’m Pretty sure they’re speaking hypothetically, as if they were the artificial brain.

                • @SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  17 months ago

                  I’m not wrong. Women fail at suicide more than men because they generally mean it less, and often use things like pills. Men use guns more than women.

                  It is trivially easy to kill yourself, and it’s nonsense to argue against that.

        • @Kedly@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          27 months ago

          Being able to chose your form and synthetically modify your body doesnt really change your ability to choose to keep living or not