Steve wrote:

> Bit#3: Did Ben realize that the prospective emergence of array processors
> (e.g. as I have been promoting) would obsolete much of his present
> work, because its structure isn't vectorizable, so he is in effect betting
> on continued stagnation in processor architecture, and may in fact be a
> small component in a large industry failure by denying market? Bit#3=
> probably FALSE.

Well, the conceptual and mathematical algorithms of NCE and OCP
(my AI systems under development) would go more naturally on MIMD
parallel systems than on SIMD (e.g. vector) or SISD systems.

I played around a bunch with MIMD parallel code on the Connection Machine
at ANU, back in the 90s

However, indeed the specific software code we've written for NCE and OCP
is intended for contemporary {distributed networks of multiprocessor machines}
rather than vector machines or Connection Machines or whatever...

If vector processing were to become a superior practical option for AGI,
what would happen to the code in OCP or NCE?

That would depend heavily on the vector architecture, of course.

But one viable possibility is: the AtomTable, ProcedureRepository and
other knowledge stores remain the same ... and the math tools like the
PLN rules/formulas and Reduct rules remain the same ... but the MindAgents
that use the former to carry out cognitive processes get totally rewritten...

This would be a big deal, but not the kind of thing that means you have to
scrap all your implementation work and go back to ground zero

OO and generic design patterns do buy you *something* ...

Vector processors aside, though ... it would be a much *smaller*
deal to tweak my AI systems to run on the 100-core chips Intel
will likely introduce within the next decade.

-- Ben G


-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=123753653-47f84b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Reply via email to