NiroZ wrote:
Uhhhh, it is true that you need both good hardware and good software, however, I'm not sure how you can argue computers process faster than us.
I'd argue like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KxjVlaLBmk (Fast hand robot)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDKXT1ZhEgA (Ball-catching robot)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVR5wEYkEGk (Pencil-balancing robot, you try doing that sometime and see if you can process fast enough)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBCVprX0WnY (Big Dog packing robot, all-terrain)
All of which process their surroundings faster than we do though
not to the same extent. Look at Watson, the computer who went on Jeopardy who was able to parse sentences and compare rather subtle wordplay. Now none of these examples show an integrated package as complete or flexible in capability as the human body and in that sense I agree, computers don't come close, but that wasn't my point. My point was processing speed.
I'm simply claiming computers process things faster than we do. I don't know how one can argue against that. At the same time, I do not believe computers are, or ever will be, more intelligent than humans, no matter their speed. Intelligence is more than speed.
And neural networks (which I referred to) are eventually supposed to be only hardware, in the form and function of human neurons that will then "
write its own software"
. I'm an electrical engineer, I work in this field and have a vested interest in it.
____________________________
-Logan