General consensus is that this is hard-wired genetic behavior. It's mildly impressive, but nothing that we think we couldn't do on a computer with enough time and effort.
> In short, babies learn to speak without ever hearing what we would consider enough language.
All known humans who were deprived of social contact during early development were unable to learn speech later on. Babies get a ton of language stimulus; I'm not sure where you're getting "what we would consider enough".
> In a thousand years, with completely different computers, maybe.
We're only a few orders of magnitude off from standard COTS computer equipment being able to match the throughput you would expect from a human brain doing one "useful" thing per neuron at several kHz (which is probably a gross overestimation). Even if we decided to do a full neurophysiological simulation for every neuron in the brain, that only adds a few more orders of magnitude required compute power.
We expect to hit $1/(TFLOP/s) over the next 20 years or so, and there's physically no way the brain is doing more than a (PFLOP/s), unless neurons are doing some insane amount of work at a sub-neuronal level (which, I admit, is possible, but quite unlikely).
I would propose a long-term bet, but I'm not sure what the conditions would be.
General consensus is that this is hard-wired genetic behavior. It's mildly impressive, but nothing that we think we couldn't do on a computer with enough time and effort.
> In short, babies learn to speak without ever hearing what we would consider enough language.
All known humans who were deprived of social contact during early development were unable to learn speech later on. Babies get a ton of language stimulus; I'm not sure where you're getting "what we would consider enough".
> In a thousand years, with completely different computers, maybe.
We're only a few orders of magnitude off from standard COTS computer equipment being able to match the throughput you would expect from a human brain doing one "useful" thing per neuron at several kHz (which is probably a gross overestimation). Even if we decided to do a full neurophysiological simulation for every neuron in the brain, that only adds a few more orders of magnitude required compute power.
We expect to hit $1/(TFLOP/s) over the next 20 years or so, and there's physically no way the brain is doing more than a (PFLOP/s), unless neurons are doing some insane amount of work at a sub-neuronal level (which, I admit, is possible, but quite unlikely).
I would propose a long-term bet, but I'm not sure what the conditions would be.