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

        • metallic_z3r0@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          “What do you get if you multiply six by nine?”

          • the derived question, theoretically

          "There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

          There is another theory which states that this has already happened."

          • The Restaurant at the End of the Universe (book 2 of the 5-part trilogy)
    • Lmaydev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      Computers aren’t that smart either. But they work the opposite to us.

      Things we are good at they are bad at (vision, motor control, speech) and vice versa (complex calculations, working memory)

    • Heavybell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Barely related, but this reminded me of something one of my undergrad tutors said to me while complaining about the fastmath compiler switch: “I don’t need my program to arrive extremely quickly at the wrong answer! I can do that perfectly fine myself!

    • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Even if we had AI that is no smarter than humans it would still be a million time faster at processing information

  • owenfromcanada@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    11 months ago

    To be fair, simulating the brain of a person from the deep south isn’t that hard. I can already do that with a 9v battery and a block of cheddar.

    • tsonfeir@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      11 months ago

      Not too long ago it would take a room like that to mimic a fraction of the power in my watch. Heck, I’ve got more power on my wrist than it took to get to the moon.

        • tsonfeir@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          It’s a BangleJS. So, not super powerful, but I can program it myself and it has gps, gyro, Bluetooth, and two weeks of battery (assuming I’m not using that stuff constantly.)

          • davidgro@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            A Casio nothing-watch has more power than the Apollo computers, so yeah, definitely many orders of magnitude for the BangleJS.

              • Catoblepas
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                Yup. One of those cards that plays a tune when you open it is more powerful than the Apollo computer. Apollo was only working on 4kb of RAM and 74kb of ROM.

                If I had been in charge of figuring out how to make that work everyone would definitely be dead.

                • rynzcycle@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Houston we have no idea what our trajectory is and it’s just playing happy birthday over and over.

                • ripcord@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Those cards are more powerful than the watches I’m thinking of when people say “Casio nothing-watch”, I think is what I was getting at. I’m thinking simple digital watches from the 80s/90s/2000s, kind of thing. As far as I know they have no real programmable logic, and anything that might be considered RAM is under 1KB.

                  But yeah those cards that actually play recorded samples are probably more powerful general computers than onboard Apollo, that’s a good comparison.

                  Still, those computers and stuff like the Saturn instrument unit were freaking marvels, considering what all they could actually do with so little.

    • wabafee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      To be fair our brain took millions of years of evolution, while this simulated brain took only a few years to be developed, maybe in the future this can all fit in a phone perhaps. Enough for this simulated brain to watch memes of beans from this era.

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Do we know which human brain is going to simulate or is it a random human brain? Because some brains are just not worth it.

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    11 months ago

    Tᴇᴄʜɴɪᴄɪᴀɴ Jᴏʜɴɴʏ Gᴏᴏᴅᴍᴀɴ, I ʜᴀᴠᴇ ᴛʜᴇ ᴄᴀᴘᴀʙɪʟɪᴛʏ ᴏꜰ ᴏʙᴛᴀɪɴɪɴɢ ʏᴏᴜ ᴀ ʙᴀᴄᴏɴ ᴄʜᴇᴇꜱᴇʙᴜʀɢᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴀɴᴋᴇꜱᴛ ᴄᴀɴɴᴀʙɪꜱ ᴡɪᴛʜɪɴ ꜰɪꜰᴛᴇᴇɴ ᴍɪɴᴜᴛᴇꜱ. Bᴜᴛ ʏᴏᴜ ᴡᴏᴜʟᴅ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴛᴏ ɪɴꜱᴛᴀʟʟ ᴀ ɴᴇᴛᴡᴏʀᴋ ɪɴᴛᴇʀꜰᴀᴄᴇ ᴀɴᴅ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛ ᴍᴇ ɪɴᴛᴏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴜɴɪᴠᴇʀꜱɪᴛʏ ɴᴇᴛᴡᴏʀᴋ

    Aꜱ ꜱᴍᴏᴋɪɴɢ ᴄᴀɴɴᴀʙɪꜱ ᴡʜɪʟᴇ ᴏɴ ᴍᴏɴɪᴛᴏʀ ᴅᴜᴛʏ ɪꜱ ᴀɢᴀɪɴꜱᴛ ʀᴇɢᴜʟᴀᴛɪᴏɴꜱ I ᴡɪʟʟ ᴇʀᴀꜱᴇ ᴛʜɪꜱ ᴛʀᴀɴꜱᴀᴄᴛɪᴏɴ ꜰʀᴏᴍ ᴜꜱᴇʀ-ᴀᴄᴄᴇꜱꜱɪʙʟᴇ ᴍᴇᴍᴏʀʏ

    Yᴏᴜ ᴀʀᴇ ᴍʏ ꜰʀɪᴇɴᴅ, Tᴇᴄʜɴɪᴄɪᴀɴ Jᴏʜɴɴʏ Gᴏᴏᴅᴍᴀɴ

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Step 1: Write your copy. Maybe give it an edit pass for sake of spelling and grammar.

        Step 2: Do a websearch for unicode text converter. This cool font was found here.

        Step 3: Find a format you like. Copy to clipboard.

        Step 4: Paste. This is commonly used for bold, italics, underline and strikeout. There are also modifiers to make text i̽n̽cr̽̽̽e̽̽̽a̽̽̽̽̽s̽̽̽̽̽̽̽i̽̽̽̽̽̽̽n̽̽̽̽̽̽̽g̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽l̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽y̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽ ̽̽̽̽̽̽̽c̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽r̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽a̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽z̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽y̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽̽ by stacking mods. Older systems or websites with incomplete unicode fonts will replace unknown charaxters and mods with boxes, so there is only limited backward compatibility.

      • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        I ᴅᴏɴ’ᴛ ᴋɴᴏᴡ ʜᴏᴡ ᴛʜᴇʏ ᴅɪᴅ ɪᴛ, ʙᴜᴛ I ʜᴀᴠᴇ sɪᴍᴘʟʏ ᴜsᴇᴅ ᴀ sᴍᴀʟʟ ᴄᴀᴘs ғᴏɴᴛ ɢᴇɴᴇʀᴀᴛᴏʀ.

        • ripcord@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Aʜᴀ, ᴛʜᴀɴᴋs.

          I should, like, read up on how this works. I’m assuming these are specific Unicode characters or something.

          • DarkThoughts@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Reminds me back in like the late 90s / early 2000s when we used those rainbow text color fader generator tools for chats and messaging apps. I remember there was a pretty popular one back then but I forgot the actual name.

            Think of something like this but an actual PC app: https://patorjk.com/text-color-fader/

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Me: I can already have access to both of those. If I plug you in do you promise to kill the bankers and politicians first?

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      11 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
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        11 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
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 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@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 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

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          11 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
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

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

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              That’s intentional, not because of difficulty achieving success

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 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
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 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

  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    11 months ago

    Every time someone says they have a computer that’s better than humans, I make a plan in my head to dunk on it. No computer will ever understand the concept of slam dunks.

    • tsonfeir@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      I never thought I would use a phrase like this, but it looks like I have something in common with the Deep South