Brian, I recommend you pick up a copy of Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near. Ray is smarter than basically everyone, and although a tad bit crazy (teaching at MIT will do that to you :)), he is a legitimate genius.
Basically, before arguing about the limits of computing, read Ray Kurzweil. Others have written similar stuff here and there, but nobody is as passionate and willing to argue about the subject as Ray. Cheers, Z-Bo On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:44 PM, BGB <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/14/2011 9:29 AM, karl ramberg wrote: > >> Interesting article : >> http://www.itnews.com.au/News/**276700,ibm-eyes-brain-like-** >> computing.aspx<http://www.itnews.com.au/News/276700,ibm-eyes-brain-like-computing.aspx> >> >> Not much details, but the what they envisions seems to be more of the >> character a autonomic system that can be quarried for answers, not >> programmed like today's computers. >> > > I have seen stuff about this several times, with some articles actively > demeaning and belittling / trivializing the existing pre-programmed Von > Veumann / stored-program style machines. > > > but, one can ask, but why then are there these machines in the first place: > largely it is because the human mind also falls on its face for tasks which > computers can perform easily, such as performing large amounts of > calculations (and being readily updated). > > also, IBM is exploring some lines of chips (neural-net processors, ...) > which may well be able to do a few interesting things, but I predict, will > fall far short of their present claims. > > > it is likely that the "road forwards" will not be a "one or the other" > scenario, but will likely result in hybrid systems combining the strengths > of both. > > for example, powerful neural-nets would be a nice addition, but I would not > want to see them at the cost of programmability, ability to copy or install > software, make backups, ... > > better IMO is if the neural nets could essentially exist in-computer as > giant data-cubes under program control, which can be paused/resumed, or > loaded from or stored to the HDD, ... > > also, programs using neural-nets would still remain as software in the > traditional sense, and maybe neural-nets would be stored/copied/... as > ordinary files. > > (for example, if a human-like mind could be represented as several TB worth > of data-files...). > > > granted, also debatable is how to best represent/process the neural-nets. > IBM is exploring the use of hard-wired logic and "crossbar arrays" / > memristors / ... > also implied was that all of the neural state was stored in the chip itself > in a non-volatile manner, and also (by implication from things read) not > readily subject to being read/written externally. > > > my own thoughts had been more along the lines of fine-grained GPUs, where > the architecture would be vaguely similar to a GPU but probably with lots > more cores and each likely only being a simple integer unit (or > fixed-point), probably with some local cache memory. > likely, these units would be specialized some for the task, with common > calculations/... likely being handled in hardware. > > the more cheaper/immediate route would be, of course, to just do it on the > GPU (lots of GPU power and OpenCL or similar). or maybe creating an > OpenGL-like library dedicated mostly to running neural nets on the GPU (with > both built-in neuron types, and maybe also "neuronal shaders", sort of like > "fragment shaders" or similar). maybe called "OpenNNL" or something... > > although potentially not as powerful (in terms of neurons/watt), I think my > idea would have an advantage that it would allow more variety in neuron > behavior, which could likely be necessary for making this sort of thing > "actually work" in a practical sense. > > > however, I think the idea of memristors is also cool, but I would presume > that their use would more likely be as a type of RAM / NVRAM / SSD-like > technology, and not in conflict with the existing technology and > architecture. > > > or such... > > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/**listinfo/fonc<http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc> >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
