Since Moore minted his law on the doubling of processor speed in a given time interval people have been wondering when a computer would equal the power of the human brain. This moment is often referred to as “singularity”.
Some look forward to singularity as “computers” will make our human lives one of plenty (the optimists), some look at it terrified (the pessimists) as they presume we will be totally overtaken and out of control of our own destiny and evolution form that moment onwards.
The assertion is that the “computer” at this point will be able to have a kind of consciousness that makes it an independent entity that can cater for its own evolution, safety and nutrition. We clearly are projecting ourselves on to the singular computer.
The human brain holds some terrific wiring capable of some pretty neat tricks. The neurological set-up of our brains is highly efficient to process and store information from various sources with -when compared to computers – an incredibly low energy requirement.
In article “Brain-inspired circuit board 9000 times faster than an average PC” via C|net some figures are given: Japan’s K Computer needed 40 minutes of computer time to simulate 1 second of brain activity of 1% for with the 4th faster supercomputer on earth. At present the human brain is 240.000 (=40x60x100) times more powerful. We would need roughly 18 doublings in computer power to achieve singularity based on these figures.
When applying the original Moore’s law and assume it will continue to hold for a few more decades to come it would take “us” 27 years to reach singularity (2040).
At present it looks like we are now at 3 years for doubling the processor capacities. Unless we have major breakthroughs (e.g., quantum computing) we can expect to see this time interval become longer still. With the current pace it will take us half a century (2068) to reach singularity in one computer.
Why do we (still) compare one brain v.s. one computer?
Raw silicon power is interesting but can only be unleashed by software running it.
Software, just a very rough term like “computers”, is coupled with the ability to store vast amounts of data and coupled with countless devices and sensors has already become immensely powerful.
The question is valid if the device is still an aspect to consider as the essence of the computer. If not the whole idea of singularity will need to be redefined.
Is it a relevant/fair comparison to start with?
Do we actually use all the potential computational horse power in our brains? What do you use your computing power for?
The capacity of the human brain theoretically is phenomenal but we cannot use it for other tasks. We cannot use a part of our brains to do computations or whatever we would like to have it done.
What could we do with the computing power equivalent to 1 human brain to our disposal? Maybe we could be simulating vast parts of the universe in real time to the atom? Nice, but this might theoretically be so if you count the synapses and the set-up of the wiring and the parallel principle of computing used but a real brain can never ever do this calculation.
How to reach a world of plenty?
For arguments sake lets consider a future where our society is capable of ever more prosperity. I sincerely doubt we as humans will find a way to deal with sharing this prosperity. Human nature and our societies are not arranged for a “world of plenty”, actually the contrary we will not reach a world of plenty for most will not have access to the “plenty” the less we need humans to be part of the creation/ownership of the world of plenty. I have written about this before at RedPlanetDust.
But how decisive is this moment of singularity anyway?
Is it then, and only then – when a computer is equivalent in computing power with 1 human brain -we will reach the threshold computers will overpower us? How much computer power do you need to create something that outperforms us humans in a way it will overtake us?
We are already completely dependent on computers and software. Computers are better in Jeopardy, chess and other areas that were deemed supreme human territories.
Not a single computer needs to be as powerful as our brain to take over, nor do we have to wait for computers to add prosperity until then as that are doing already for decades now.
The idea computers will surpass us at moment t= “singularity” is a fallacy. We will be out of control long before “singularity”, if we are not already for it is an unstoppable development.
(see also Is technology governing us or are we governing technology?)