I've always suspected that it comes from the ability to see around corners,
which appears to be a rare ability. If someone keeps seeing things that other
people say aren't there, eventually it will drive them a little crazy :-)
An amazing example of this (I think) is contained in this video:
http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2011/10/06/you_are_underestimating_the_future.html
Paul.
>________________________________
>From: John Zabroski <johnzabro...@gmail.com>
>To: Fundamentals of New Computing <fonc@vpri.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 11:55:29 AM
>Subject: Re: [fonc] IBM eyes brain-like computing
>
>
>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 <cr88...@gmail.com> 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
>>>
>>>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
>>fonc@vpri.org
>>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>fonc mailing list
>fonc@vpri.org
>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
