zlacker

>>geox+(OP)
1.4 PB/mm^3 (petabytes per millimeter cubed)×1260 cm^3 (cubic centimeters, large human brain) = 1.76×10^21 bytes = 1.76 ZB (zetabytes)

>>posnet+r5
[AI] "Frontier [supercomputer]: the storage capacity is reported to be up to 700 petabytes (PB)" (0.0007 ZB).

[AI] "The installed base of global data storage capacity [is] expected to increase to around 16 zettabytes in 2025".

Thus, even the largest supercomputer on Earth cannot store more than 4 percent of state of a single human brain. Even all the servers on the entire Internet could store state of only 9 human brains.

Astonishing.

>>gary17+29
I appreciate you're running the numbers to extrapolate this approach, but just wanted to note that this particular figure isn't an upper bound nor a longer bound for actually storing the "state of a single human brain". Assuming the intent would be to store the amount of information needed to essentially "upload" the mind onto a computer emulation, we might not yet have all the details we need in this kind of scanning, but once we do, we may likely discover that a huge portion of it is redundant.

In any case, it seems likely that we're on track to have both the computational ability and the actual neurological data needed to create an "uploaded intelligences" sometime over the next decade. Lena [0] tells of the first successfully uploaded scan taking place in 2031, and I'm concerned that reality won't be far off.

[0] https://qntm.org/mmacevedo

>>falcor+9b
we are nowhere near whole human brain volume EM. the next major milestone in the field is a whole mouse brain in the next 5-10 years, which is possible but ambitious

>>rmorey+We
What am I missing? Assuming exponential growth in capability, that actually sounds very on track. If we can get from 1 cubic millimeter to a whole mouse brain in 5-10 years, why should it take more than a few extra years to scale that to a human brain?

>>falcor+tg
assuming exponential growth in capacity is a big assumption!