This is just nonsense. A GPU can not rearrange its internal circuitry to change precision or reallocate operations. A brain can and does by shrinking/expanding synapses, growing new ones, etc.
Give me some floats, I can make a GPU do matrix multiplication, or sparse matrix multiplication, or many other kind of computations at a variety of precisions across the entire domain of floats at that precision.
A brain is (maybe) carrying out a computation which is modeled by a particular bunch of sparse matrix multiplications, in which the programmer has much less control over the inputs, domain, and structure of the computation.
The fact that some process (maybe) irreducibly requires some number of FLOPs to simulate faithfully is different from that process being isomorphic to that computation itself.
Intelligence requires exploring and simulating a large circuit space—ie by using something like gradient descent on neural networks. You can use a GPU to do that inefficiently or you can create custom nanotech analog hardware like the brain.
The brain emulates circuits, and current AI systems on GPUs simulate circuits inspired by the brain’s emulation.
Intelligence requires exploring and simulating a large circuit space—ie by using something like gradient descent on neural networks.
I don’t think neuroplasticity is equivalent to architecting and then doing gradient descent on an artificial neural network. That process is more analogous to billions of years of evolution, which encoded most of the “circuit exploration” process in DNA. In the brain, some of the weights and even connections are adjusted at “runtime”, but the rules for making those connections are necessarily encoded in DNA.
(Also, I flatly don’t buy that any of this is required for intelligence.)
Give me some floats, I can make a GPU do matrix multiplication, or sparse matrix multiplication, or many other kind of computations at a variety of precisions across the entire domain of floats at that precision.
A brain is (maybe) carrying out a computation which is modeled by a particular bunch of sparse matrix multiplications, in which the programmer has much less control over the inputs, domain, and structure of the computation.
The fact that some process (maybe) irreducibly requires some number of FLOPs to simulate faithfully is different from that process being isomorphic to that computation itself.
Intelligence requires exploring and simulating a large circuit space—ie by using something like gradient descent on neural networks. You can use a GPU to do that inefficiently or you can create custom nanotech analog hardware like the brain.
The brain emulates circuits, and current AI systems on GPUs simulate circuits inspired by the brain’s emulation.
I don’t think neuroplasticity is equivalent to architecting and then doing gradient descent on an artificial neural network. That process is more analogous to billions of years of evolution, which encoded most of the “circuit exploration” process in DNA. In the brain, some of the weights and even connections are adjusted at “runtime”, but the rules for making those connections are necessarily encoded in DNA.
(Also, I flatly don’t buy that any of this is required for intelligence.)