IBM makes supercomputer significantly smarter than cat - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Valdor;18449076]When I see four chickens take down a cow without any loses then I'll believe that.[/QUOTE] Cows have a more powerful brain than chickens, for one(velociraptors were smarter than most other dinosaurs that they hunted), number 2, they don't hunt bigger prey. They eat smaller animals and seeds.

[QUOTE=Brian Williams;18448990]gaming pc's of course[/QUOTE] Crysis with maxed out graphics! :neckbeard:

[QUOTE=yawmwen;18449104]Cows have a more powerful brain than chickens, for one(velociraptors were smarter than most other dinosaurs that they hunted), number 2, they don't hunt bigger prey. They eat smaller animals and seeds.[/QUOTE] I tell yah, vulture turkeys are fucking modern day velociraptors.

Not like it matters you can't annoy a computer.

Cats are stupid, though.

[QUOTE=archangel125;18448905]Interesting. I'd give it fifty to a hundred years at the current rate of technological advancement before they're able to accurately simulate human or near-human intelligence.[/QUOTE] Give it 10-15 years. [editline]12:08PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Wakka V2;18448864][b]IBM has announced a software simulation of a mammalian cerebral cortex that's significantly more complex than the cortex of a cat. And, just like the actual brain that it simulates, they still have to figure out how it works.[/b] An interdisciplinary team of researchers at IBM have presented at paper at the SC09 supercomputing conference describing a milestone in cognitive computing: the group's massively parallel cortical simulator, C2, now has the ability to simulate a brain with about 4.5 percent the cerebral cortex capacity of a human brain, and significantly more brain capacity than a cat. No, this isn't yet another example of Kurzweil-style guesstimating about how many "terabytes" of storage a human brain has. Rather, the authors quantify brain capacity in terms of numbers of neurons and synapses. The simulator, which runs on the Dawn Blue Gene /P supercomputer with 147,456 CPUs and 144TB of main memory, simulates the activity of 1.617 billion neurons connected in a network of 8.87 trillion synapses. The model doesn't yet run at real time, but it does simulate a number of aspects of real-world neuronal interactions, and the neurons are organized with the same kinds of groupings and specializations as a mammalian cortex. In other words, this is a virtual mammalian brain (or at least part of one) inside a computer, and the simulation is good enough that the team is already starting to bump up against some of the philosophical issues raised about such models by cognitive scientists over the past decades. In a nutshell, when a simulation of a complex phenomenon (brains, weather systems) reaches a certain level of fidelity, it becomes just as difficult to figure out what's actually going on in the model—how it's organized, or how it will respond to a set of inputs—as it is to answer the same questions about a live version of the phenomenon that the simulation is modeling. So building a highly accurate simulation of a complex, nondeterministic system doesn't mean that you'll immediately understand how that system works—it just means that instead of having one thing you don't understand (at whatever level of abstraction), you now have two things you don't understand: the real system, and a simulation of the system that has all of the complexities of the original plus an additional layer of complexity associated with the models implementation in hardware and software. The more faithful the simulation gets, the bigger an issue this becomes. The researchers allude to it in section 3.2.2 of the paper, when they describe a measurement tool they call the "BrainCam." "When combined with the mammalian-scale models now possible with C2," they write, "the flood of data can be overwhelming from a computational (for example, the total amount of data can be many terabytes) and human perspective (the visualization of the data can be too large or too detailed)." The problem described above doesn't mean that accurate simulations are worthless, however. You can poke, prod, and dissect a brain simulation without any of the ethical or logistical challenges that arise from doing similar work on a real brain. The IBM researchers endowed the model with checkpoint-based state-saving capabilities, so that the simulation can be rewound to certain states and then moved forward again under different conditions. They also have the facility for generating MPG movies of different aspects of the virtual brain in operation, movies that you could also generate by measuring an animal's brain but at much lower resolutions. There's even a virtual EKG, which lets the researchers validate the model by comparing it to EKGs from real brains. In the end, C2 is like having a (sorta) real cortex that you don't fully understand, but that you can rewind, snap pictures of, and generally measure under different conditions so that you can do experiments on it that wouldn't be possible (or ethical) with real brains. [b]Scaling and the singularity[/b] One of the major results from the paper is that C2 exhibits "weak scaling." In other words, as the total amount of memory in the model scales, the number of neurons and synapses that can be simulated scales roughly linearly, also. This is important, because it means that a future version of Blue Gene with two or three orders of magnitude more memory (and associated bandwidth and processing power) will be able to simulate an entire human brain. The model also exhibits "strong scaling," which means that increases in the amount of memory per CPU enable them to run the model faster, so that it will eventually be able to simulate a cortex in real time. [img]http://www.edhat.com/assets/catOfTheWeek/nedm.jpg[/img][img]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:HA4WnticMUviRM:https://www.shopping.662mob.com/images/vs-sticker.gif[/img][IMG]http://i47.tinypic.com/12172hz.png[/IMG] [url=http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/ibm-makes-supercomputer-significantly-smarter-than-cat.ars]http://www.meow-mix.com[/url][/QUOTE] And the last question remains. Can it run Crysis?

[QUOTE=GreenDolphin;18450947]Give it 10-15 years. [editline]12:08PM[/editline] And the last question remains. Can it run Crysis?[/QUOTE] [img]http://imgkk.com/i/y3rO0k.gif[/img] MAXIMUM SPEED [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Image spam / Animal abuse" - cosmic duck))[/highlight]

I'm actually surprised no one has said any stupid shit about robot overlords or anything.

-snip-

[QUOTE=Umi-hebi;18450985][img]http://imgkk.com/i/y3rO0k.gif[/img] MAXIMUM SPEED[/QUOTE] What a fucking dickhole. goddamn nigs [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Trolle" - TH89))[/highlight]

[IMG]http://virulentwordofmouse.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/hal-400.jpg[/img] "meow"

[QUOTE=Umi-hebi;18450985][img]http://imgkk.com/i/y3rO0k.gif[/img] MAXIMUM SPEED[/QUOTE] I hope they die a horrible death.

What if we all hooked up our computers to it, like the protean folding project?

[QUOTE=Mr_Proudfoot;18451208]What a fucking dickhole. [b]goddamn nigs[/b][/QUOTE] I know that what they did to that cat was stupid but that was just unnecessary.

That picture is fucking horrible but I smirked a little. [b]Edit:[/b] Poor cat :frown:

[QUOTE=coolrider102;18448974]What the hell are they going to use it for....[/QUOTE] Cat AI? :v:

I feel bad for laughing about it :( [editline]03:54PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Dlaor;18451955]Cat AI? :v:[/QUOTE] CatI

[QUOTE=Master117;18449056]100 years from now[/QUOTE] I won't live anymore then. No wait, shit....

Smarter then a cat, eh. That's not really impressive, that's like saying you're the smartest kid in the Special Needs room.

[QUOTE=Draicia;18448915]What's with cats and computer science anyway? [IMG]http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/470000/images/_471786_catimage1300.jpg[/IMG] ^Comparison between interpreting signals from cats visual cortex and real image, creepy how the guy kind of looks like a cat from the cat's eyes.[/QUOTE] makes me wonder that what we see is just us ineorpaykthyg ojhur kelga.

[QUOTE=Perfumly;18448903]Shows how far off we still are from replicating a human brain.[/QUOTE] Shows us how far off we still are from robots taking over the world

[QUOTE=Umi-hebi;18450985][img]http://imgkk.com/i/y3rO0k.gif[/img] MAXIMUM SPEED[/QUOTE] SON OF A BITCH! I hope those guys go to hell for that! Back to topic. Cats scratch. Computer hard disk scratch too

[QUOTE=BCell;18452171]SON OF A BITCH! I hope those guys go to hell for that! Back to topic. Cats scratch. Computer hard disk scratch too[/QUOTE] Too bad hell doesn't exist.

[QUOTE=DrLuke;18451956]I feel bad for laughing about it :( [editline]03:54PM[/editline] CatI[/QUOTE] iCat? Download new music and videos at the touch of a button.

Thread derailed good job johanz and Bcell, and Umi-hebi.

[QUOTE=UOYKCUF|DEAD;18448884][img]http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs226.snc1/7323_1047177278766_1805714465_103530_4152425_n.jpg[/img] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Spam image" - cosmic duck))[/highlight][/QUOTE] i cracked up

All they need to do to recreate a cat brain is to just take a normal PC and then disconnect the keyboard and mouse. It's only going to do what it wants to.

Incredible. I wonder what kind of discussions these kind of stuff will bring in the future. Imagine if it began to think.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;18452259]Incredible. I wonder what kind of discussions these kind of stuff will bring in the future. Imagine if it began to think.[/QUOTE] I thought every robotic/AI induced Apocalypse movie out there would've taught us to be more careful.

[QUOTE=Wakka V2;18448864] In a nutshell, when a simulation of a complex phenomenon (brains, weather systems) reaches a certain level of fidelity, it becomes just as difficult to figure out what's actually going on in the model—how it's organized, or how it will respond to a set of inputs—as it is to answer the same questions about a live version of the phenomenon that the simulation is modeling.[b] So building a highly accurate simulation of a complex, nondeterministic system doesn't mean that you'll immediately understand how that system works—it just means that instead of having one thing you don't understand (at whatever level of abstraction), you now have two things you don't understand: the real system, and a simulation of the system that has all of the complexities of the original plus an additional layer of complexity associated with the models implementation in hardware and software. [/b] The model also exhibits "strong scaling," which means that increases in the amount of memory per CPU enable them to run the model faster, so that it will eventually be able to simulate a cortex in real time. [/QUOTE] Wait, so they don't actually understand what the thing is thinking when they do it? So it's actually thinking for itself at that point? There was another article on Gizmodo that they also said the technology needed for the human brain to be implimented into their super computer is going to be 2019-2020.