Slashdot Mirror
Beowulf Pioneer Lured From Cal Tech to LSU
An anonymous reader writes "Thomas Sterling, a pioneer of clustered computing, including /.'s beloved Beowulf cluster, has has accepted a fully-tenured professorship at Louisiana State University's Center for Computation and Technology, ditching his old post at Cal Tech. From TFA: "At LSU, he hopes to develop the next generation of high-performance computers that will give birth to true artificial intelligence. By making computer chips more efficient, Sterling believes he can change computing by "one to three orders of magnitude" that will transform how humans interact with technology.""
At LSU, he hopes to develop the next generation of high-performance computers that will give birth to true artificial intelligence.
2theadvocate was down when I tried to read their story, so mirrors please?
I'll comment briefly (WRTFA):
I am sick of the term next generation: it irks me. I think if you're talking about devoting the next twenty years towards developing true AI, then the focus has to be about the direction that could be taken, the nuts and bolts of it all, and what the setbacks could be. High performance computers are like high performance people, in many ways, or at least they should be. Incentives must exist for a metrological system to present itself into the true nature of self and this measure supercedes the facility of overexaggeration, to the point where no truly defined system can surpass the narrow view of purpose devoted by the creator, without being heralded as a foolish endeavour. The heavy processing of high performance computing works against the nature of AI.
True AI means that mistakes will be made by the creator and the subject, and emotions will exist in the subject to counter-attack development stumbling blocks, and assist in development, or improve development of wisdom and ultimate self-awareness comes only from experiences of contrast, pain and pleasure (for example). These precepts have never come into cause with a system yet, because each system is built as an object and not a person; each system is built for a financial purpose and not a scientific purpose.
Science and finance are enemies, strange bedfellows that hate eachother but rely on eachother, in a bad marriage, with nothing to lose and at times everything to lose. How can balance come to this nature, to enable true AI to come forward out of the ashes?
How is it possible at all? I don't see it. I see just another generation of the same thing, so perhaps the term next generation is apt?
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
At least he'll be able to get water cooling done on the cheep.
On a serious side, my father teaches at Lafayette U. (PetroChemcial Engineering), and near one of his offices the school is building a state of the art VR system. Very much cutting edge, high tech, and down right cool.
So, while LA has the illusion of being backwater, they do some fairly high tech stuff there. After all, isn't that where id got their start?
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
he hopes to develop the next generation of high-performance computers that will give birth to true artificial intelligence
Let me get this straight. We're geeks. We read science fiction. Much of science fiction is spent talking about the dangers of pushing technology too far too quickly, especially artificial intelligence. We know that corporations like pushing too far too quickly as they can boost their stock prices. Here's a guy saying he wants to create "true" artificial intelligence and we're all-of-a-sudden thinking its a good thing?
Damien
But could you rewrite your statement without superfluous language (i.e. "supercedes the facility of overexaggeration") or vague expressions (i.e. "improve development of wisdom")?
Certainly, I will do so for the purpose of clarity.
I am sick of the term next generation: it irks me.
Next generation indicates that there is only progress extended from previous efforts.
I think if you're talking about devoting the next twenty years towards developing true AI, then the focus has to be about the direction that could be taken, the nuts and bolts of it all, and what the setbacks could be.
More than what is normally considered in developing AI models, would be required in the foundation of true AI.
High performance computers are like high performance people, in many ways, or at least they should be.
Driven people show traits that are above and beyond regular people, but somehow each person still has their own intelligence. People excel differently in situations, and high performers in an organization are rewarded. How can you reward a computer simulation? Should rewards not be part of the foundation of true AI?
Incentives must exist for a metrological system to present itself into the true nature of self and this measure supercedes the facility of overexaggeration, to the point where no truly defined system can surpass the narrow view of purpose devoted by the creator, without being heralded as a foolish endeavour. The heavy processing of high performance computing works against the nature of AI.
A new measurement must exist that is based on the nature of self-awareness, which would have to be the cornerstone of true AI. You have to know these measurements in order to perfect them, and the subject (the being using the AI) will also have to have some connection to these measurements. Humans have pain and pleasure. We are rewarded when we are doing things correctly, and we are punished when we are not. We rely on resources to survive. No AI system today has to face limited resources because their power comes from a bigger system. True AI should be forced to experience a similar measurement to enable self-awareness.
The point; "this measure supersedes any facility of overexaggeration," means that the measurements can not be too noticeable or they will fail. How many of you notice every little nuance, every little adjustment in your mood, in your body? I was pointing at the necessity for subtle, subconscious measures, to propel changes in the AI structure.
True AI means that mistakes will be made by the creator and the subject, and emotions will exist in the subject to counter-attack development stumbling blocks, and assist in development, or improve development of wisdom and ultimate self-awareness comes only from experiences of contrast, pain and pleasure (for example).
I am connecting emotions with the measurements of true AI, so that it can self-guage, and assess events adequately.
Improving the development of wisdom, means that a subject must learn from mistakes and develop an underlying, profound understanding of the subject's environment. This is part of true AI. That is also the reason for the measurements I was discussing.
These precepts have never come into cause with a system yet, because each system is built as an object and not a person; each system is built for a financial purpose and not a scientific purpose.
When you look at true AI, there is a price attached to it. When you look at human development, what did it cost our maker? Do we have a maker? Was there a bottom line? Was there a reward?
Theology has to be present in creating something that will use true AI, mostly because without a creator relationship, the lack of purpose in the subject becomes perhaps a motivator for suicide, depression and other negative side-effects. If true AI will exist, then we must assume that the subject will possess at least some of our own negativity, or they cou
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
His is a predictable move. If after 9 years at Caltech he was still mired in an untenured, non-tenure-track position of "faculty associate", it's natural that he jumped at the chance of becoming a full professor at LSU.
This comment is neither an endorsement nor an attempt to disparage the guy's technical merits, as I don't know the politics going on at Caltech. At least in computer science at Stanford, getting tenure has gotten ridiculously unlikely in the last several years.
Well, you could use long ints rather than bits to hold your information...
..." I always wonder whether you've counted them. I'm rather sure you really just meant "a rather large number" which is why I responded with the comment about long ints, but on the chance that you meant what you said literally, permit me to disagree. I see no evidence for an actual infinity anywhere in human thought. A computational infinity, perhaps, but that's handled with a lazy algorithm. (You only generate the number of things that you actually look at. You just have a generator rule.)
When you say "there are an infinite number of
The g.p.'s argument about the need for better algorithms is probably right on, but better hardware may also be needed. OTOH, we currently have computers with more computational capability than a frog, but they don't seem as intelligent. This is probably because the actual AI programs run on shoestring budgets, and can't afford the massive hardware that's dedicated to such things as protein folding. (Also because intelligence requires time to be taught. It doesn't spring into full bloom de novo.)
Beowulf clusters were a way to build budget supercomputers, and that would mean that more powerful computers could be dedicated to more speculative projects...like AI. This doesn't sound to me like a wild goose chase, but success may be more indirect than the article is implying.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.