Comment by krisoft
1 year ago
I think you are missing the point.
The calculation is intentionally underestimating the neurons, and even with that the brain ends up having more parameters than the current largest models by orders of magnitude.
Yes the estimation is intentionally modelling the neurons simpler than they are likely to be. No, it is not “missing” anything.
The point is to make a ballpark estimate, or at least to estimate the order of magnitude.
From the sibling comment:
> Individual proteins are capable of basic computation which are then integrated into regulatory circuits, epigenetics, and cellular behavior.
If this is true, then there may be many orders of magnitude unaccounted for.
Imagine if our intelligent thought actually depends irreducibly on the complex interactions of proteins bumping into each other in solution. It would mean computers would never be able to play the same game.
> Imagine if our intelligent thought actually depends irreducibly on the complex interactions of proteins bumping into each other in solution. It would mean computers would never be able to play the same game.
AKA a quantum computer. Its not a "never", but how much computation you would need to throw at the problem.