> I take a quite non-mainstream approach to AI, and more generally to computer > science as a whole. For one, I am not at all interested in the CPU-centric > paradigm that permeates the computer industry. >
I admire 'thinking outside the box'. > Dedicated purpose hardware provides task specific performance orders of > magnitude higher than that of a general purpose CPU. And task-specific > hardware need not be inordinately expensive. Look at graphics and sound > boards as an example of this. > > There is no reason you couldn't take every single deterministic, P algorithm > in the standard C++ libraries and implement it as hardware. Most programs > would then be mostly written in assembly language, with constructions like > > binarysearch[sorted_array x, search_target y] replacing add a, mov y, etc > etc. > > not only are you getting the efficiency boost of assembly language, but also > the speed boost of dedicated hardware! I'm not suggesting eliminating > CPUs, just saying they should act as the conductor, not the conductor plus > the orchestra members plus the instruments plus the stage... > Great observation...however I should remind you that at the heart of the best hardware is the kernel of software that allows hardware to be of any use at all...otherwise known as microcode. My point is simple. Even a reductionist point of view w.r.t. the soft v. hard-ware dilemma can be taken only so far. > Also, software can be written in hardware. Photoshop costs 500$, an entry > level computer from dell that will run PS quite well costs 400$. This is > kinda nutty. Put the fucker on a chip, with some flash ram to allow > patching, halve the price (who the hell pirates IC's?), and get at least an > order of magnitude increase in program speed *compared to current top of the > line Intel/AMD processors running software version of Photoshop*. And this > speed would be more or less constant if you put the Photoshop chip in a 400$ > PC or a 4000$ dollar pc. (actually, the faster PC's could help out with > math-heavy stuff such as certain filters). > And that should be taken to mean as far as the microcode takes it. At which point, you are once again faced choices once again reflective of the soft v. hard-ware dilemma and consequences there-in on ultimate questions of system efficiency, performance, and optimization. I like your description ;-) > ok that was all rather off topic :) > > anyway back to the topic on hand - I personally am not so much interested in > either imitating the brains architecture or designing a mind that is highly > efficient and 'smart' from the get go. I'm trying to solve the problem of > general cognition, and hence I don't care if an AI based on my methods > starts out with the smarts of a mouse :). As long as the general conceptual > basis is sound, and scaleable to human-level cognition or higher, I would be > a very, very happy person. > > Ed, thanks for your insightful and thought provoking comments :) they have > my brain going off in all sorts of directions as a result of writing this > response, and that is definitely a good thing. > > J Standley > > ------- > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, > please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
