this post was submitted on 03 May 2024
106 points (90.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35755 readers
508 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I know current learning models work a little like neurons but why not just make a sim that works exactly like how we understand neurons work

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I just want to make sure one of your words there is emphasized "possible" (Edit it's also wrong as I explained below)

The number of possible connections in the human brain is literally greater than the number of atoms in the universe.

Yes - the value of 86 billion choose two is insanely huge... one might even say mind bogglingly huge! However, in actuality, we've got about 100 trillion neural connections given our best estimates right now. That's about a thousand connections per neuron.

It's a big number but one we could theoretically simulate - it also must be said that it's impossible for the simulation of the brain to be technically impossible... We've each got a brain and there are a billion of us made up out of an insignificant portion of the mass+energy available terrestrially - eventually (unless we extinct ourselves first) we'll start approaching neurological information storage density - we're pretty fucking clever so we might even exceed it!

Edit for math:

So I did a thunk and 86 billion choose 2 actually isn't that big, I was thinking of 86 billion factorial but it's actually just 86 billion squared (it'd be 86 billion less than that but self-referential synapses are allowed).

Apparently this "greater than the number of atoms in the universe" line came from famously incorrect shame of Canada Jordan Peterson... and, uh, he's just fucking wrong (so math can be added to the list of things he's bad at - and that's already a long list).

Yea so - 86 billion squared = impressively large number... but not approaching 10^80 impressively large.

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

I've been quoting Jordan Peterson for years?! Ahhh fuck.