What kind of computer would it take to render a completely self-aware and functional human within a virtual space?

What kind of computer would it take to render a completely self-aware and functional human within a virtual space?

Other urls found in this thread:

technologyreview.com/s/601441/moores-law-is-dead-now-what/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

One that can't exist.

moore's law

the one we're living in right now

literally no one knows yet.
my guess would be a very fast and powerful one, but we don't even know yet if it's possible to create something self-aware with computers.
chances are god and souls are real and to be self aware you need a soul, which can not be transferred or created.

or this

It also bothered me at the end of White Christmas that the cookie's hardware could simulate 1000 years of a human consciousness per minute

>White Christmas
trigger'd

question is, can you fuck it?

>moore's law
hasn't been relevant in many years

user's law

Pentium with MMX

A magical one

the brain uses non-real operations, so ........

one that can't ever be made

your brain exists

it is largely a computational machine, even if many of its processes and foundations are still opaque to understanding and replication

at some point it becomes a solvable engineering problem

> Questioning plot devices

It was just used to tell a story. You try writing a book before you complain.

why is she so smug?

It really hasn't though, the speed of progress slowed down quite a few years ago

OI WOT IF YA PHONE CAME TAH LOIFE AND BUGGAD YE GIRLFRIEND THAD BE ROIGHT MENTAL INNIT

That God and soul is bullshit. Computers are just much slower than we think when you truly want general purpose.

For example most people compares the number of neurons on a human brain with the bytes of a computer. That's bullshit, only for adressment you would need 16 bytes per synapse, and several KB if not MB for each neuron. And all of that on the RAM. In a normal supercomputer that means hosting about one million neurons, several times less than the minimum required. In the same sense, whatever algorithm we come with, it won't consist of one operation / neuron, so it makes no sense to compare flops with amount of spikes on the brain, it will always be several times worse.

So far, we are really far from virtualizing a human. Now, simulating maybe. Just like games, they look realistic yet we don't need to emulate every atom out there to render a scene, we should not need to emulate every neuron neither. So, if someone finds a way to "simulate" the brain, that should be enough for us.

>human consciousness
is not as crazy advanced as you think. your shitty personality is just a pure function of the current state of the world and the 3 registers in your brain

implying mr brooker doesnt use perfect received pronunciation

IBM already made brain computers.

Much more powerful, efficient, and incompatible than anything else available.

The universe itself. Any reduction would prevent it and any machine inside it cannot reproduce it without a reduction.
Best possible would be a lossy human (compressed).
PNG vs JPG

Hahaha

No.

>implying you can tell the difference between png and jpg

why does the png seem lighter?

But you exist and are right now inside a virtual space your own mind constructs for yourself based on external input.

Moore's law isn't the problem.
Current architecture is.

grasping at your hat again, anonkun?

In a side by side like that it's evident, and depending on the level of compression used it's even more evident. Outside of over-compressed images and side by side comparisons most people wouldn't be able to tell, especially if the image was scaled down.

If you can't see the difference you need an eyecheck

>PNG IS SUPERIOH I SWEAR

fapping has a low resolution threshold akin to beergoggle antialiasing

...

user's law II

>when to use png.jpg
>.jpg
user...

I'd like to 3D print a realdoll of her and forget about AI and all that bullshit

technologyreview.com/s/601441/moores-law-is-dead-now-what/ don't have to be an user to make the observation

What kind of computer would it take to render a completely functional human zygote within a virtual space?

We've got a software problem, not an hardware one.

you'll note the artefacting around the letters

that's the joke my man.

The bottom horse is colored differently than the top. In a simulation of a human mind it’d be worse and mental problems might be exaggerated.

No, it'd be a machine wherein all non-essential noise is stripped away. You can simulate a cell in a computer which behaves and responds exactly as a cell does in the real world, I've used them before; you just do away with all the fiddly shit that the cell doesn't really "need" to act as a cell. Much of quantum and subatomic physics do not apply to the cell provided you accurately -represent- in the simulation the actual physics of the real world. It's like compression, but in this case the compression is in the meta data and storage container for the image. You want to represent a cell (an image), so you don't bother representing the chemistry of pigments (physics behind the scenes). Instead of simulating the physics of the interactions between neutrons, protons, and electrons (it's simply unimportant to simulating a cell), you simulate the interactions between proteins and water molecules. Similarly, you rarely need to simulate subatomic particles for a human-like AI, because the vast majority of AIs in your simulation aren't interested in subatomics. Further, the OP references a Black Mirror episode where this literally doesn't even matter because the AIs are aware they are in a simulation. The computer theoretically can get away with just simulating the neurology of a mind—anything much smaller than the proteins of a neuron aren't useful to simulate in this scenario. It's a functional copy of a mind, it doesn't need to simulate atoms in true-to-life relative positions in space. If a "mind" is the product of a neurological process, you could build one out of Lego if you had enough time and enough parts to build a structure that accurately represented the processes a brain carries out (although it would be a comparatively very slow mind).

>behaves exactly the same.
No physics library is anywhere close to 1:1 so that’s not true. Even if there was a close one, by definition it is lossy.
We don’t even know the true physics, since the standard model simulation was proven 95% wrong through direct observation of the stars movement in galaxies.
Your sim cell is cool but it’s not as good as a real cell.

The brain is analog. You need to simulate the proteins and other molecules to simulate it.

because JPEG does color compression

Stop slashing at peoples faces dude.

that only applies to simulating the universe itself inside the universe

anything within the universe can be perfectly replicated with enough resources within that universe

tfw the mother makes another appearance in a show you like and shes still cute as fuck

wat

Stimulating the entire universe atom by atom would require a computer larger than the universe.

You left your name on.

is what I'm saying

thanks for the obvious

i remember reading somewhere about there not being enough entropy in the universe to do something like that

some sort of organic computer, much like say oh idk, a human brain.

goddamit, thanks for pointing it out

>mental problems might be exaggerated.
so there will be tonnes of tranny AIs?

Yeah I didn't read what you responded to.

When I'm high I start thinking quantum mechanics exists so our masters don't have to stimulate the huge amount of space, we can't solve it because we aren't meant to.

maybe the characters in my dreams are fully rendered. they seem to have a will of their own

tribute when?

It's theoretically impossible to perfectly model reality because you would need a computer/software more complex than reality which could not fit inside of reality.

mind rape

linux

When I imagine certain people's self making it talking via text would take less then newest OnePlus 5T, the best phone on the market.

Yes, we are beyond point some humans can think less than phones. But ddoesn't that makes you subhuman once computer can make you self aware?

Also even your self awareness is just programmed. Mehehe.

Humans, playing dominant spieces since they reckognized self in a mirror they are pretending they are something more then a biological computer.

>posting a PNG vs JPG comparison in PNG format
>Choosing an image that compresses well on both formats

Try the same with a digital chess game with high compression settings and posting two seperate images before you post your failure of a transcode.

user's law III

oh god, please kill yourself, compression looks and sounds horrible.

Only good answer

>what is transparent compression

How proud are you for loosely understanding that one thing you learned about computers in a book one time

As machine learning and artificial intelligence advance it is becoming more and more clear that this isn't the case. We'll be able to dominate consciousness in a vastly simpler way than a molecular simulation of a brain.

Consciousness is thanks to Quantum phenomena in the brain. Even if you replicated a brain on a biological and mechanical level it wouldn't be conscious.

Nice fedora.

>ibm
>incompatible
>sources check out

There is no spoon

Simulations need to be built in a way to accurately model the underlying concept, without simply building the underlying concept. We can't build a simulation for human brains because the only thing that accurately represents the complex (often unstructured) interaction inside a human brain is a human brain. The only comparable simulation would be a one-to-one simulation of every single molecule inside the brain.

this

>chances are god and souls are real
[citation needed]

None.
Self-awareness is unachievable to a turning machine.

Well, as we can see, there is a spoon. And it's HUGE.

just a few more years