1 million “neurons” that communicate via 256 million “synapses.”
Human brain = an estimated 100 billion neurons for over 100 trillion synapses according to Wikipedia
So a 5 orders of magnitude difference for neuron count, but only 1 small order of magnitude for average synapse per neuron (1 for 256 in former, 1 for 1000 in latter)
I wish scientific news were better at framing the numbers they quote from press release.
It’s interesting to keep track of these sort of numbers, because while we clearly won’t have a chip that can do things remotely near what a human brain can when the numbers are at parity, at least it’ll help focus people more on exploring changes in architecture, rather than throwing more and more computational units at the problem.
while we clearly won’t have a chip that can do things remotely near what a human brain can when the numbers are at parity
That seems hard to say at this point. Certainly quantity won't be the sole determining factor; but quantity combined with behavior and interactions might mean that on-a-chip neurons function better than human/animal brains.
Human brain = an estimated 100 billion neurons for over 100 trillion synapses according to Wikipedia
So a 5 orders of magnitude difference for neuron count, but only 1 small order of magnitude for average synapse per neuron (1 for 256 in former, 1 for 1000 in latter)
I wish scientific news were better at framing the numbers they quote from press release.
It’s interesting to keep track of these sort of numbers, because while we clearly won’t have a chip that can do things remotely near what a human brain can when the numbers are at parity, at least it’ll help focus people more on exploring changes in architecture, rather than throwing more and more computational units at the problem.