Random Thoughts Thread

**Montmorency** · 10-26-2016, 12:38

No, the idea being that thinking that a hard drive will allow you to store things other than what is exactly designed to be stored on a hard drive completely misunderstands the technology and the underlying physical principles.

**Husar** · 10-26-2016, 12:54

Originally Posted by Montmorency

No, the idea being that thinking that a hard drive will allow you to store things other than what is exactly designed to be stored on a hard drive completely misunderstands the technology and the underlying physical principles.

I'm not sure though whether the idea that artificial neural networks could one day be as good as biological ones is that crazy.

What sounds like a lack of understanding to me is calling them "neural networks" and "actual neurons", because to my understanding, "actual neurons" only work really well in a "neural network". If that's what you mean then I understand you, but your quote is also a bit off given that the quoted person is not the one making the mistake there.

**Montmorency** · 10-26-2016, 13:59

If neurons act as a neural network, then a computer software designed for certain tasks and using select characteristics of some neurons will not behave as a "real" neural network.

Lightbulb technology will never be "as good as" a sun when it comes to generating light, both because that's an inherent technological constraint and because the design of a lightbulb, being made for specific purposes, is very far from the design of a star.

**Husar** · 10-26-2016, 16:00

Originally Posted by Montmorency

If neurons act as a neural network, then a computer software designed for certain tasks and using select characteristics of some neurons will not behave as a "real" neural network.

But now you entered the constraints of using select characteristics and being designed for specific tasks.
My point was that these things are still in development, it seems strange to assume that they cannot one day do more.
And it doesn't just have to be software, apparently some chips are designed as neural networks: http://www.research.ibm.com/cognitiv...ic-chips.shtml

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Lightbulb technology will never be "as good as" a sun when it comes to generating light, both because that's an inherent technological constraint and because the design of a lightbulb, being made for specific purposes, is very far from the design of a star.

That is a very strange way to combine these arguments. The physical limitations are relatively obvious, but to say a light bulb is created for specific purposes that differ from those of a star is a bit odd given that the purpose of a light bulb is to replace the light of a star in places or at time where the light of a star is not readily available. Of course the design is different, having a star with the smallest working mass on our planet would be a bit much and also a bit hote, in fact one would rather say having our planet on such a star rather than the other way around.
The light bulb still allows you to see things the same way the star does, so with that purpose in mind, they both provide the same result.

If you are refering to the idea that pouring alcohol over a brain vs pouring it over a computer chip on which a neural network is running yields different results, well, whom are you quoting, Captain Obvious?

**Montmorency** · 10-26-2016, 18:07

it seems strange to assume that they cannot one day do more.

What they will be able to do in the future depends on how are present assumptions and what we think we are trying to accomplish are revised. The important thing is that 'more of' what we're doing now will not push boundaries.

they both provide the same result.

And that's exactly what current approaches can manage - and that's fine. But let's not pretend we're building stars when we're just making plain-old lightbulbs.

**Husar** · 10-26-2016, 19:37

Originally Posted by Montmorency

What they will be able to do in the future depends on how are present assumptions and what we think we are trying to accomplish are revised. The important thing is that 'more of' what we're doing now will not push boundaries.

I'm not so sure, but I'm also not deep in the topic (yet).

Originally Posted by Montmorency

And that's exactly what current approaches can manage - and that's fine. But let's not pretend we're building stars when we're just making plain-old lightbulbs.

That's fine, but the comparison with astrology sounds a lot meaner than that.

**Hooahguy** · 10-26-2016, 20:06

Is a promotion without a pay raise (or any pay at all) really still a promotion?

EDIT: not talking about my recent donning of the red robes.

**Montmorency** · 10-26-2016, 20:25

That's fine, but the comparison with astrology sounds a lot meaner than that.

No, it's spot-on. Echoed here.

**a completely inoffensive name** · 12-27-2016, 05:47

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Lightbulb technology will never be "as good as" a sun when it comes to generating light, both because that's an inherent technological constraint and because the design of a lightbulb, being made for specific purposes, is very far from the design of a star.

Guys, please look up the facts before making statements like these. Wikipedia gives a solar luminosity figure of 98 lumens per watt. I can buy a Cree LED 100W equivalent light bulb that out puts 1,650 lumens at 16.5 Watts. We are already there and the technology is still improving.

**Montmorency** · 12-27-2016, 10:52

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Guys, please look up the facts before making statements like these. Wikipedia gives a solar luminosity figure of 98 lumens per watt. I can buy a Cree LED 100W equivalent light bulb that out puts 1,650 lumens at 16.5 Watts. We are already there and the technology is still improving.

What do you think raising the subject of energy efficiency relates to my post?

**a completely inoffensive name** · 12-28-2016, 03:41

Originally Posted by Montmorency

What do you think raising the subject of energy efficiency relates to my post?

First half of your statement was that lightbulb technology will never be "as good as" a sun when it comes to generating light because of "inherent technological constraint".

My point is that we already have lightbulbs that are better at generating light than the sun.

**Montmorency** · 12-28-2016, 06:54

My point is that we already have lightbulbs that are better at generating light than the sun.

Why do you say that? Your citing of the metric offers no context to what we make of the sun - and note that with respect to the sun the wattage component of the efficacy apparently refers to the radiated heat rather than direct source electrical consumption or conversion.

No, what you have cited goes toward evaluating some lamps against others in generation of light. Don't misuse metrics in response to a criticism of the misuse of metrics.