zlacker

>>treebr+(OP)
A really simple approach we took while I was working on a research team at Microsoft for predicting when AGI would land was simply estimating at what point can we run a full simulation of all of the chemical processes and synapses inside a human brain.

The approach was tremendously simple and totally naive, but it was still interesting. At the time a supercomputer could simulate the full brain of a flatworm. We then simply applied a Moore's law-esque approach of assuming simulation capacity can double every 1.5-2 years (I forget the time period we used), and mapped out different animals that we had the capability to simulate on each date. We showed years for a field mouse, a corvid, a chimp, and eventually a human brain. The date we landed on was 2047.

There are so many things wrong with that approach I can't even count, but I'd be kinda smitten if it ended up being correct.

>>jjcm+ne
To be pedantic, I would argue that we aren't even close to being able to simulate the full brain of a flatworm on a supercomputer at anything deeper than a simple representation of neurons.

We can't even simulate all of the chemical processes inside a single cell. We don't even know all of the chemical processes. We don't know the function of most proteins.

>>shpong+Lh
> We can't even simulate all of the chemical processes inside a single cell. We don't even know all of the chemical processes. We don't know the function of most proteins.

Brain > Cell > Molecules(DNA and otherwise) > Atoms > Sub-atomic particles...

Potentially dumb question, but how deeply do we need to understand the underlying components to simulate a flatworm brain?

>>consum+pj
While I believe there are some biological processes that rely on engagement and such, they haven’t been found in the brain. So likely somewhere just above the molecule level (chemical gradients and diffusion timings in cells certainly have an effect).