|
|
|
|
|
|
by Ulti
3739 days ago
|
|
|
This isn't a better view though. The number of Watts is not important. Biology is efficient in energy use, so what? If you tax a human brain it doesn't especially consume vast amounts more energy. I don't work up a sweat thinking. What's more interesting is if the computational "power" has parity. Deep Blue wasn't as computationally powerful as a human brain. It was specialised which is why it's not as interesting a victory as AlphaGo which is based on a more general principal. |
|
|
That's a very bold statement to make coming from the perspective of an industry that does just about everything it can to save energy. Better programming means lower energy consumption, to achieve a win like this on 1% of the energy budget would be a major game changer (no pun intended).
AlphaGo is still using brute force quite a bit, the stage is set for a much improved batch of software that will focus less on brute force as a main strategy.