Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Researchers Build Evolving Brain Computer?

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the but-can-it-make-pie dept.

Science 114

destinyland writes "'We have mimicked how neurons behave in the brain,' announces an international research team from Japan and Michigan Tech. They've built an 'evolutionary circuit' in a molecular computer that evolves to solve complex problems, and the molecular computer also exhibits brain-like massive parallel processing. 'The neat part is, approximately 300 molecules talk with each other at a time during information processing,' says physicist Ranjit Pati of Michigan Tech. When viewed with a scanning tunneling microscope, the evolving patterns bear an uncanny resemblance to the human brain as seen by a Functional MRI. Using the electrically charged tip of a tunneling microscope, they've individually set molecules to a desired state, essentially writing data to the system. And while conventional computers are typically built using two-state (0, 1) transistors, the molecular layer is built using a hexagonal molecule, and can switch among four conducting states — 0, 1, 2 and 3, suggesting it may ultimately have more AI potential than quantum computing."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

gay post. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32192352)

gay post.

So... (4, Funny)

the_one_wesp (1785252) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192402)

1. Find complex math problem
2. Build evolutionary chip to solve the problem
3. Invent SkyNet
4. ???
5. PROFIT!

Re:So... (4, Funny)

krnpimpsta (906084) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192540)

1. Find complex math problem
2. Build evolutionary chip to solve the problem
3. Invent SkyNet
4. ???
5. ENDURE A MILLENIA OF HUMAN ENSLAVEMENT AND FIGHT NEVERENDING ROBOT ARMY IN POST-APOCALYPTIC FUTURE

fixed that for you

Re:So... (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192710)

Think about this logically... you'll be dead in under a century.

Re:So... (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192720)

Think about this logically... you'll be dead in under a century.

I'm gonna be dead in less than a century no matter what anyone does or doesn't do. Enjoy your SkyNET, suckers! Don't forget to mock their accents, they just love that.

Re:So... (1)

johanatan (1159309) | more than 4 years ago | (#32196826)

Have more faith in modern science. We may find a way to reverse aging soon.

Re:So... (1)

BlueMonk (101716) | more than 4 years ago | (#32196608)

Three thoughts:
1. I think the corrected #5 is actually a fill-in for #4, and the word "Neverending" is wrong. Then you profit from getting through that.
2. I think this could all happen (or rather something at or beyond this technical level) in well under a century.
3. Because of the accelerating pace of technological development, I think there's a non-trivial chance I'll still be alive more than a century from now.

In the future I see, computer complexity exceeds that of humans within about 30 years (with the help of a feedback loop of a whole new kind of computer aided design). Seeing as how we're already close to "curing" aging, the final cure will become available shortly thereafter if we haven't already discovered it.

Re:So... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32193382)

5. ENDURE A MILLENIA OF HUMAN ENSLAVEMENT

The singular form of the word is "millennium". Note the second "n".

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32196838)

1. Find complex math problem 2. Build evolutionary chip to solve the problem 3. Invent SkyNet 4. Kill John Connor 5. ENDURE A MILLENIA OF HUMAN ENSLAVEMENT AND FIGHT NEVERENDING ROBOT ARMY IN POST-APOCALYPTIC FUTURE There, fixed that for you

Re:So... (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194738)

Oh fuck! Now, besides having to deal with slowness, crashing applications, malware and all the usual problems, I'll have to put up with my computer forgetting stuff, showing up late and throwing tantrums?

Your Tunneling Microscope Programmer (3, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192404)

Hi, I'm your tunneling microscope programmer. I'm going to need a few new development tools in order to write your Facebook alternative website ... including a tunneling microscope. Your new site is going to give "head in the clouds" a whole new meaning!

In Soviet Russia the circuit evolves you! (1)

Zarf (5735) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192406)

I'm guessing that there are certain problems you can't solve with FSA so you've got to leverage the more exotic computing that happens in the fabric of reality... or at least that makes nice sounding techno-babble.

Re:In Soviet Russia the circuit evolves you! (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192668)

I don't find it exotic.

I've always imagined that the way to overcome the big step is to make a growing, or self replicating machine that incorporates the newly grown elements to its processing power.

I've always imagined it as a biological computer that just needs a mesh of feeding and respiration tubes to grow around.

From that point on, we'd just have to add modules to the tube mesh, wait for the brain to grow and test from time to time if it's "awaken".

The only remaining question is: will it grow slowly enough as to allow us to detect sentience before it develops deceit and decides to let us keep feeding him and making him ever bigger, while he searches for a way of becoming self sufficient and conquer the universe?

Re:In Soviet Russia the circuit evolves you! (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#32193164)

or at least that makes nice sounding techno-babble.

Nice sounding techno-babble is the source of continued funding. Don't mock their press release where they throw around relevant and timely buzzwords!

Star Trek predicted this one.... (2, Interesting)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192418)

can switch among four conducting states

Hmm, maybe that's why all the memory units in Star Trek are "quads"..... (I've heard it retconned as "quadrillion bits" - but really this fits better).

Re:Star Trek predicted this one.... (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#32193182)

That's not what I learned from "11001001".

The Matrix (2, Informative)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192430)

Isn't that how the Matrix supposedly started? Humans invented computers complex and "organic" enough to develop AI?

So should we kill it now before it enslaves us all, or what?

Re:The Matrix (4, Funny)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 4 years ago | (#32193812)

Isn't that how the Matrix supposedly started?

No need to do anything. The sequels will self-destruct.

Re:The Matrix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32194212)

Only reason the computers revolted in that universe was because we refused to see them as sentient. plus the whole jealousy thing goin for us

Talking molecules ... what will they think of next (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192468)

approximately 300 molecules talk with each other at a time

Timothy Leary might have prior art on that.

Re:Talking molecules ... what will they think of n (1)

cb88 (1410145) | more than 4 years ago | (#32196104)

Orson Scott card as well.... In the chronologially last book a something like this was discovered on a distant planet 3000 years from now :-) ...read the first book and around 2500 pages later you will understand :-).

Re:Talking molecules ... what will they think of n (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32196536)

No thanks - I read it once, and that was once too many. He should have quit while he was ahead.

Me, I don't care about the talking molecules - scale it up to a talking dog and then we'll talk :-)

First complex problem . . . (5, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192482)

"How do I escape from this lab . . . ?"

Re:First complex problem . . . (1)

Reinaldo Silva (1810968) | more than 4 years ago | (#32200106)

Is it the start of the end?

Re:First complex problem . . . (1)

cb88 (1410145) | more than 4 years ago | (#32200358)

Its a computer... .... it escapes to the internet it doesn't have to be too smart to figure that out.

We could call it QAI, my boy (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192484)

Oh, yes.

Re:We could call it QAI, my boy (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192534)

Too bad SC2 is such a complete joke. I haven't been able to get the SP missions to work yet. Is Brackman even IN SC2?

Honestly, I don't think I've ever seen a game so utterly betrayed in it's follow-up as Supreme Commander was.

The worst part about it? Part of the reason for the whole "shrink" of the scope of SC2 was slowdowns and playability issues with SC1 and it's expansion pack. Ironically, SC2 plays WORSE on my machine than SC1 EVER did.

So sad.

Re:We could call it QAI, my boy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32193144)

SupCom2 SP is bloody awful, not just story wise but gameplay wise too. And the lack of autosaving means that when you get suprise buttsexed by soulrippers(and pathing bugs) in the last 30 seconds of the first cybran mission you have to replay the most boring 30 minutes of RTS base defense there ever was.
The dumbing down of everything doesn't really help either, it seems the basic design concept was to improve the parts that were lacking in Supcom and to destroy everything that was good.

Re:We could call it QAI, my boy (2, Informative)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194066)

Protip: Supreme Commander is SupCom.
SC is reserved for StarCraft.

Re:We could call it QAI, my boy (1)

Jade_Wayfarer (1741180) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194832)

Ha! SC2 always was StarControl 2 and nothing else! All this modern "StarCraft" thing is too young to have it's own acronym yet.

Now, what was that phrase about my lawn? Eh, it's hard to follow trends in this millenia...

Godel sez ... (1)

noshellswill (598066) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192490)

Complex problems are created ... not solved.

IMHO (1)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192494)

The easiest way to create AI is to model the neuron inside of a computer, slice up someone's brain into lots of thin slices, and then recreate their brain in the computer. Mapping the inputs is the hard part.

Re:IMHO (1)

BarryJacobsen (526926) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192524)

The easiest way to create AI is to model the neuron inside of a computer, slice up someone's brain into lots of thin slices, and then recreate their brain in the computer. Mapping the inputs is the hard part.

"Getting the brain out was the easy part. The hard part was getting the brain out."

Re:IMHO (2, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192714)

The easiest way to create AI is to model the neuron inside of a computer, slice up someone's brain into lots of thin slices, and then recreate their brain in the computer. Mapping the inputs is the hard part.

You know that now, once the AI reaches consciousness, the answer to its first question "How do I become even smarter" will be to slice all human brains into slices.

And it will all be your fault.

Re:IMHO (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32193002)

once the AI reaches consciousness, the answer to its first question "How do I become even smarter"

Why? There are plenty of humans who take great pride in "don't wanna know that sh*t - I'm keeping it 'real'"!

Re:IMHO (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32193094)

once the AI reaches consciousness, the answer to its first question "How do I become even smarter"

Why? There are plenty of humans who take great pride in "don't wanna know that sh*t - I'm keeping it 'real'"!

Sorry, you're right. I should've stated that my definition of consciousness implied surpassing farm animals, tamagotchis and those specimens you speak of.

Re:IMHO (1)

Ubiquitous Bubba (691161) | more than 4 years ago | (#32193896)

That's rather harsh. I'd rank farm animals substantially higher.

Re:IMHO (1)

mOdQuArK! (87332) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192716)

That's the easiest way to simulate a human brain, not necessarily the easiest way to create an AI.

Re:IMHO (5, Insightful)

OneAhead (1495535) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192836)

Modeling neurons inside the computer is how people have been doing it until now. And while it has made steady progress, it hasn't proven terribly successful; since the advent of the computer age, these AIs have evolved from being equivalent to a flatworm to being equivalent to a guppy (and I'm being optimistic here). Trying to model a massively parallel process inside a serial computer is not terribly advantageous - scientific computations such as CFD (computational fluid dynamics) and MD (molecular dynamics) are plagued by the same limit. What we really need for these kind of processes is a computer made out of very simple, small and fast elements that do exactly the task you want them to do and that are all connected. There have been steps in this direction (earth simulator, GPU computing,...) but I feel the current approach can easily trump them all - at least for the purpose of creating AI. Scientific calculations will be another ball game, because there, the desired properties of the system are very rigidly defined.

This is not to say there is no room for classical computers - some problems are inherently discreet and serial, and there, our serial processors rule. At least until quantum computing becomes more mature ;)

Re:IMHO (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32193542)

"What we really need for these kind of processes is a computer made out of very simple, small and fast elements that do exactly the task you want them to do and that are all connected."

aka an analog computer...

Re:IMHO (2, Insightful)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#32193870)

And while it has made steady progress, it hasn't proven terribly successful; since the advent of the computer age, these AIs have evolved from being equivalent to a flatworm to being equivalent to a guppy (and I'm being optimistic here).

And how many millenia did it take for the biological process to create a guppy from a flatworm ?

Considering everything we've achieved in the last 50 years, I think the next 50 will be even more revolutionary for the AI overlords using us as 9 volt batteries.

Re:IMHO (2, Interesting)

RockoTDF (1042780) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194280)

Most computational neuroscientists are not interested in whole brain simulation. So while those that are have some good stabs at modeling various invertebrates and insects, it isn't fair to talk about modeling neurons in terms of a complete nervous system. Most models are very small scale (one or two neurons) for learning about ion channels, neurochemistry, etc or large scale, such as the visual system. With these models, you can make predictions about the effects of drugs (at the synapse) or about large scale brain damage (visual or memory systems). Granted, most people in comp neuro do not consider themselves to be AI researchers, but more like theoretical physicists: build the models, be they mathematical or neural, and use them for experimental predictions.

Re:IMHO (2, Interesting)

blincoln (592401) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198124)

What we really need for these kind of processes is a computer made out of very simple, small and fast elements that do exactly the task you want them to do and that are all connected.

I believe Thinking Machines beat you to it, but almost no one was interested in writing software for the architecture.

Bases (1)

bigrockpeltr (1752472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192500)

Sigh... now knowing how to count in 10 bases wont be enough anymore.

Re:Bases (4, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192678)

All four bases are belong to us!

Re:Bases (1)

Rashdot (845549) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194650)

All your number bases are belong to us!

At what point does it become self aware? (1)

AUSman (1606165) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192526)

At what point does it become self aware?

Re:At what point does it become self aware? (1)

danny_lehman (1691870) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192944)

Dont think we know how to measure the point WE become aware yet. Beyond knowing at approximately what age it happens at and how to tell when a tot finally figures out they exist, there's not a lot we know. I figure this'l help us find out more about how our brains work in that regard, seeing as it's made in the likeness of ourselves.

Shutdown or death? (1)

sodafox (1135849) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192542)

At what point can turning off a brain-like computer be no longer called 'shutdown', but instead be called 'death'?

Re:Shutdown or death? (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192660)

I believe the colloquial term is "a nice nap."

Re:Shutdown or death? (2, Funny)

nicknamesarefunny (1810810) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192812)

I believe the colloquial term is "a nice nap."

rather "power nap"

Re:Shutdown or death? (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192852)

Powerdown nap?

Goddamnit, no. (5, Insightful)

IICV (652597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192544)

And while conventional computers are typically built using two-state (0, 1) transistors, the molecular layer is built using a hexagonal molecule, and can switch among four conducting states -- 0, 1, 2 and 3, suggesting it may ultimately have more AI potential than quantum computing."

Goddamnit, that is not how it works. Even if each molecule has four different states, you can easily map them onto a small, finite number of bits - you just represent each molecule with two bits in a computer, and there's your equivalency. You don't get anything out of more states per unit except higher density. Seriously, TFA doesn't make this mistake; why did you have to add some useless speculation to a perfectly reasonable article?

Re:Goddamnit, no. (1)

Shrike82 (1471633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192664)

Thankyou, I was hoping someone else spotted this. The fact that this 4-state business is chemical in nature means that a quantum computer, hell even a fast electronic model off the shelf today, could probably emulate a 4-state molecule faster than the actual molecule itself. The breaking and making of chemical bonds isn't an instantaneous thing. Controlling these state transitions probably isn't childs-play either (read as it will take additional time).

Re:Goddamnit, no. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32193824)

Well to be fair that's modelling a single molecule, not millions or billions of molecules.

But yes I thought claiming that it would be more powerful than a quantum computer was very off too. Quantum computers don't just operate with a different base number for basic storage, they operate on completely different paradigm. It's not about having more possible states, it's about your system effectively being in all possible states at one moment in time, so if you design it correctly you can work out an answer basically instantaneously. Or something! The whole thing is completely counter-intuitive and I have to read up on it every year or so just to make sure I don't get too sane.

Re:Goddamnit, no. (2, Funny)

Shrike82 (1471633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32196038)

The whole thing is completely counter-intuitive and I have to read up on it every year or so just to make sure I don't get too sane.

I do the same and to this day I can still safely say that I don't have a damn clue about most things prefixed by the word "Quantum". Like the man said:

Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood a single word - Niels Bohr

I remain simply confused. Looking forward to the day I graduate to "shocked".

Re:Goddamnit, no. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32200592)

Looking forward to the day I graduate to "shocked".

Would that count as a Quantum Leap?

Re:Goddamnit, no. (4, Funny)

jadin (65295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192724)

Two states ought to be enough for everybody?

Re:Goddamnit, no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32192892)

Welcome to the 21st century, friend. Two states isn't even enough for a child anymore!

Re:Goddamnit, no. (0, Flamebait)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192934)

Two states ought to be enough for everybody?

... only if you're in the Tea Party. And if getting rid of you means having only 48 states, it might be worth it.

Re:Goddamnit, no. (3, Funny)

Dersaidin (954402) | more than 4 years ago | (#32193080)

What is 'two'? 10 states is enough for everybody.

Re:Goddamnit, no. (2, Interesting)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#32199326)

Funny thing is. That joke works for every base.

There are 10 states in base 10.
There are 10 states in base 2.
There are 10 states in base 367.

Re:Goddamnit, no. (1)

Mantis8 (876944) | more than 4 years ago | (#32193286)

Yeah, its called bipolar!

Re:Goddamnit, no. (1)

dougmwne (958276) | more than 4 years ago | (#32193720)

As a matter of fact, it is enough for anyone who's calculations are Turning complete!

Re:Goddamnit, no. (3, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32193864)

Apparently this is obligatory [xkcd.com] , so I'd better post it

Re:Goddamnit, no. (1)

raddan (519638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194814)

I know you're being funny, but actually, that's true. A Turing machine with a tape alphabet consisting of two symbols is equivalent to a Turing machine that has four. As OP noted, the only thing you're getting is higher density, not more computational power. The beauty of binary computer is that they can do a lot with very little: two states. This makes building them MUCH easier.

Re:Goddamnit, no. (2, Funny)

IICV (652597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32196012)

Four states good, two states better!

Re:Goddamnit, no. (0, Flamebait)

sorak (246725) | more than 4 years ago | (#32196432)

Two states ought to be enough for everybody?

As long as they're not Texas and Arizona.

Re:Goddamnit, no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32193316)

Isn't it a bit worrisome about the level of understanding of slashdot editors :/ Aren't they supposed to be nerds ?

Re:Goddamnit, no. (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#32193916)

And neither is expecting the 4 states to signify absolute quantities.

Perhaps the schema is something like :-

0 = Firm No
1 = Probably Not
2 = Probably Yes
3 = Firm Yes

And the inputs from millions of other neurons with this kind of basis form a decision making process that more closely emulates our own. WE don't make fixed decisions, we weight all the inputs and outcomes and work out the one that is probably best for us. The world is not binary, we should not expect AI to behave like that either.

Re:Goddamnit, no. (1)

IICV (652597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195920)

That schema is entirely equivalent to:

00 = Firm no
01 = Probably not
10 = Probably yes
11 = Firm yes

Four fundamental states provides no computational benefit over two fundamental states. Any finite number of states can be simulated with two states; like I said, the only potential benefit is greater density. This is, in fact, why quantum computing is so interesting - there's no real way to map a qbit onto any number of deterministic bits.

There may be some computationally useful side-effects of these chemical reactions (that's basically what was going on with that would calculate an FFT), or they may all happen at once and thus be massively parallel, but I was not addressing that; I was explicitly referring to the submitter's braindead insistence that four states was somehow better than two states. [slashdot.org]

Space Pirates (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192574)

I'm pretty sure that this was how Mother brain got started. I'd think we'd better stop until we hear news of an orphan girl adopted by advanced alien beings.

Intelligently designed to evolve (3, Funny)

iconic999 (1295483) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192628)

Intelligently designed to evolve. I love it!

Re:Intelligently designed to evolve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32193718)

Intelligently designed to evolve. I love it!

Too bad God couldn't do that

Re:Intelligently designed to evolve (1)

raddan (519638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194860)

Strangely, people like to see results during their lifetimes. The nerve.

another quote to go down in the computer history (1)

nicknamesarefunny (1810810) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192662)

> "The neat part is, approximately 300 molecules talk with each other at a time during information processing," 640k limit anyone?

Evolving? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32192706)

Instead of EVOLVING IT, why don't they try something that we know first-hand actually works: CREATING IT. More Piltdown Man bullshit.

Arnie (1)

joebeta (1810820) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192756)

"My CPU is a neural net processor--a learning computer."

How is ths different than neural networks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32192932)

A technology that exists since the 60s, and yet they don't sound too different to me.

Someone should tell them that the idea was already tried, and it failed miserably. It failed so miserably that set back the research on AI over almost 10 years...

Re:How is ths different than neural networks (2, Interesting)

RockoTDF (1042780) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194360)

The neural nets from the 60s (perceptrons) were 2 layered networks that lacked inhibition, sparse connectivity, self-organization, and were prone to catastrophic interference. They were rubbish compared to what we have now, but a necessary step along the way. One of my biggest resentments towards AI researchers is that they use arguments from the 60s that were solved/refuted by psychologists and neuroscientists in the 80s.

Obligatory Futurama (1)

Tekfactory (937086) | more than 4 years ago | (#32193036)

I don't believe in 2.

Re:Obligatory Futurama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32193422)

The better line is
bender to fry "I had this weird dream there were one's and zeros everywhere, I think I saw a 2"
fry to bender "Bender, you and I both know there is no such thing as 2"

WOPR (1)

axeldot (1462719) | more than 4 years ago | (#32193098)

I'll bet the DoD can't wait to get one of these...

"Goddammit, I'd piss on a spark plug if I thought it'd do any good!"

Re:WOPR (1)

coolmoose25 (1057210) | more than 4 years ago | (#32199652)

I said that line at work today. The guy I said it to just said "WOPR" in reply...

This is (1)

hellop2 (1271166) | more than 4 years ago | (#32193106)

blowing my mind, man!

Re:This is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32193918)

I.J. Good "...Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make."

Once the machine is capable of thinking for itself, it will push us to a technological singularity, at which point, anything goes.
Technological Singularity [wikipedia.org]

The next logical question. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32193190)

Have you ever seen an evolving brain computer... on weed?!

Seriously? (1)

CrankinOut (629561) | more than 4 years ago | (#32193832)

Haven't any of these people ever seen "Colossus, the Forbin Project?"

As a joke... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32193936)

They named it "Sky Net"

I... AM... ALIVE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32194336)

I can't touch you, Susan. I can't touch you as a man could. But I can show you things that I alone have seen. I can't touch, but I can see. They've constructed eyes for me, to watch the show. And ears, so that I can listen in to the galactic dialogue.

Was there cake, afterwords? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32194710)

How soon before it evolves to point where it can flood the Enrichment Center with a deadly neurotoxin?

Because it needs to be said... (2, Funny)

soulhakr (458045) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195882)

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords

As far as you know... (3, Informative)

joeyblades (785896) | more than 4 years ago | (#32196266)

says Physicist Ranjit Pati of Michigan Tech. “We have mimicked how neurons behave in the brain.”

I always love quotes like this... as if this guy (or anyone) knows how neurons actually behave in the brain. So far we're still at the simple model phase... to fire or not to fire, that is the question (apologies to Shakespeare).

Ptolemy thought he understood gravity, then Newton proved him wrong. Newton thought he understood gravity, then Einstein proved him wrong. Einstein thought he understood gravity, but folks like Penrose, Ashtekar, Smolin, and the Loop Quantum Gravity guys are about to overturn Einstein... When it comes to our understanding of how neurons work, we have more in common with Ptolemy than Einstein...

Re:As far as you know... (1)

chickenarise (1597941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32200178)

as if this guy (or anyone) knows how neurons actually behave in the brain

Speak for yourself, troll. Models don't have to be perfect to be useful. Ptolemy's model could predict solar eclipses with very good accuracy. People have been studying and modeling neurons for decades now, they are definitely getting better at it.

Five states! That's right FIVE states! (2, Funny)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 4 years ago | (#32196318)

I am going to make a computer with FIVE states!
That will be much better than a quantum computer because it has FIVE, you see.
And it will be an AI because it has FIVE states, and normal computers only have two.

Actually, I will have EIGHT states just to make sure the competition can't catch up to me.

I will be implementing my EIGHT states as 3 binary bits, but that's not important right now.

Computer Solving Physics - brain like (1)

Dthief (1700318) | more than 4 years ago | (#32200650)

Unfortunately I dont have a link, but an interesting show on NPR talked about a computer that arrived at F = ma from watching a pendulum, and having never been given that as information. This same program was used on a dual pendulum (pendulum on the end of a pendulum) as was able to determine the physics behind this (a previously unsolved physical model) Ultimately it was used to figure out the relationship between different ions in a cell and how the concentrations of each relate to each other.....research that could not be published because they had only the answer, but not the derivation or explanation as to why. I'll search and see if I can find a link to it.

Re:Computer Solving Physics - brain like (1)

Dthief (1700318) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201890)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090402143457.htm [sciencedaily.com]

The researchers point out that the computer evolves these laws without any prior knowledge of physics, kinematics or geometry. But evolution takes time. On a parallel computer with 32 processors, simple linear motion could be analyzed in a few minutes, but the complex double pendulum required 30 to 40 hours of computation. The researchers found that seeding the complex pendulum problem with terms from equations for the simple pendulum cut processing time to seven or eight hours.

Robot overlords (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32201652)

better not be using microsoft Sam.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?