Researchers Build Evolving Brain Computer? 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."
So... (Score:4, Funny)
2. Build evolutionary chip to solve the problem
3. Invent SkyNet
4. ???
5. PROFIT!
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
fixed that for you
Re: (Score:2)
Think about this logically... you'll be dead in under a century.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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 th
Re: (Score:1)
"Mr Data set Course for Orion"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Your Tunneling Microscope Programmer (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia the circuit evolves you! (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 en
Re: (Score:2)
I just checked... you got your research fully funded!
Re: (Score:2)
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.... (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
That's not what I learned from "11001001".
Re: (Score:2)
The Matrix (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't that how the Matrix supposedly started?
No need to do anything. The sequels will self-destruct.
Talking molecules ... what will they think of next (Score:2)
Timothy Leary might have prior art on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Me, I don't care about the talking molecules - scale it up to a talking dog and then we'll talk :-)
First complex problem . . . (Score:5, Funny)
"How do I escape from this lab . . . ?"
Re: (Score:1)
We could call it QAI, my boy (Score:2)
Oh, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
Protip: Supreme Commander is SupCom.
SC is reserved for StarCraft.
Re: (Score:1)
Now, what was that phrase about my lawn? Eh, it's hard to follow trends in this millenia...
IMHO (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Why? There are plenty of humans who take great pride in "don't wanna know that sh*t - I'm keeping it 'real'"!
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
That's the easiest way to simulate a human brain, not necessarily the easiest way to create an AI.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:1)
Re:Bases (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
All your number bases are belong to us!
Re: (Score:1)
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? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the colloquial term is "a nice nap."
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I believe the colloquial term is "a nice nap."
rather "power nap"
Re: (Score:2)
Powerdown nap?
Goddamnit, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 ba
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Looking forward to the day I graduate to "shocked".
Would that count as a Quantum Leap?
Re:Goddamnit, no. (Score:5, Funny)
Two states ought to be enough for everybody?
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Goddamnit, no. (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently this is obligatory [xkcd.com], so I'd better post it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Four states good, two states better!
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Two states ought to be enough for everybody?
As long as they're not Texas and Arizona.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 re
Space Pirates (Score:2)
Intelligently designed to evolve (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
according to the AI itself, the researchers dont exist, and it believes it came into being by mere freak chance.
another quote to go down in the computer history (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution is an algorithm as well as a way biology works. Evolution works quite well as an algorithm and you need not look too deep to find evolutionary algorithms and evolutionary programming or evolutionary design making real progress.
Frankly as far as this thing goes the use of evolution to create and repair the molecular circuits is the most useful part. The rest of it is pretty silly and crap you could model on an a computer and find out it doesn't work in a much shorter order.
Arnie (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Held AI back? (Score:2)
Sure, this was the thing that held AI back for a decade. Frankly AI is pretty much stuck at the very start and has been since the very start. There's been some advances in expert systems but for the most part it's been a huge failure all the way through.
Obligatory Futurama (Score:2)
I don't believe in 2.
WOPR (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
This is (Score:1)
Seriously? (Score:1)
Haven't any of these people ever seen "Colossus, the Forbin Project?"
Because it needs to be said... (Score:2, Funny)
I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords
As far as you know... (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I would but you're doing such a fine job of putting words in my mouth...
I made no comment about how useful a model might be. My point is that the statement I quoted made it sound like the model is more advanced than it is.
Five states! That's right FIVE states! (Score:3, Funny)
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 (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Hype! (Score:1)