Slashdot Mirror


The First Evolving Hardware?

Masq666 writes "A Norwegian team has made the first piece of hardware that uses evolution to change its design at runtime to solve the problem at hand in the most effective way. By turning on and off its 'genes' it can change the way it works, and it can go through 20,000 - 30,000 generations in just a few seconds. That same number of generations took humans 800,000 - 900,000 years." The University of Oslo press release linked from the article came out a few days ago; the researchers published a paper (PDF) that seems to be on this same technology at a conference last summer.

148 comments

  1. I'm so, so sorry... by DurendalMac · · Score: 5, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new evolving hardware overlords.

    God, I am so sorry, but it needed to be said...

    1. Re:I'm so, so sorry... by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I, for one, think my brain just broke. That blurb was really long for having absolutely no content or description of what the hell about the hardware was evolving. Maybe the religious nuts were right -- evolution really is evil!

    2. Re:I'm so, so sorry... by GrumpySimon · · Score: 4, Funny

      I, for one, welcome our brain-breaking evolving-hardware-Slashdot-blurb overlords.

    3. Re:I'm so, so sorry... by packeteer · · Score: 1

      it can go through 20,000 - 30,000 generations in just a few seconds. That same number of generations took humans 800,000 - 900,000 years.

      A human generation is not 40 years. Even today most people reproduce BEFORE they are 40. Historically our ancestors reproduced in their teens and early 20's.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    4. Re:I'm so, so sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm surprised this one didn't come up:

      In Soviet Russia, computer evolves you!

    5. Re:I'm so, so sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If anything demonstrates the mental retardation that afflicts Slashdot, it is the above.

      Some idiot claims that a horrifically unfunny cliché needed to be repeated. Another person points out the falsity of that claim.

      The first post is marked +5 Funny; and the second, -1 off-topic.

      Just think about that for a second.

      People, turn off your computers. Go outside. Breathe real air. Have sex. Get girlfriends. Stop posting on Slashdot and don't come back until you have gained the social skills and sense of humour possessed by any normal human being. Do it for me; do it for yourselves; do it for everyone.

      ChameleonDave

    6. Re:I'm so, so sorry... by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Funny

      Some idiot claims that a horrifically unfunny cliché needed to be repeated. Another person points out the falsity of that claim. The first post is marked +5 Funny; and the second, -1 off-topic.

      Just think about that for a second. Nope, sorry, I'd much rather think about Natalie Portman, naked and petrified and covered in hot grits. ;-P

      (Incidentally, this article tells us that Natalie Portman comments on Slashdot are "getting old... This Natalie Portman nonsense has been going on for months; it's not funny anymore." Note that the date is Oct 24 *2000*).

      People, turn off your computers. Go outside. Breathe real air. Have sex. Get girlfriends I turned off my computer, went outside, sniffed the air and had sex with some passing woman. Then the woman asked "Do I know you?" and we were arrested for public indecency.
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    7. Re:I'm so, so sorry... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1, Troll
      That same number of generations took humans 800,000 - 900,000 years.

      Mmmmm.... yeah, but it resulted in George Bush. If they're really serious about equivalent advantages, you could end up with an "evolved" CPU that tries to execute your software using a dialect of COBOL that is not only obsolete, but contains misspellings and incorrectly used operators... then when an error occurs, the system will insist on executing the operation anyway.

      Actual George Bush quote:

      "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    8. Re:I'm so, so sorry... by __aalwyc6372 · · Score: 1

      /signed

      slashdot comments are about +5 for "first posts" and "cliche posts". anything reflecting any nerd/geek movie/series will be rated up if quoted in an slashdotty manner. it's disgusting.

    9. Re:I'm so, so sorry... by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      (Incidentally, this article tells us that Natalie Portman comments on Slashdot are "getting old... This Natalie Portman nonsense has been going on for months; it's not funny anymore." Note that the date is Oct 24 *2000*).


      Man, am I getting old.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    10. Re:I'm so, so sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is proof that we, ourselves, are the Creators and are implementing Intelligent Design, which will result in Transformers who will then go back in time and implement a biological version of themselves. It's all so obvious, especially after I smoked this thing I found in my son's backpack.

    11. Re:I'm so, so sorry... by KmN · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised this one didn't come up I'm not.
    12. Re:I'm so, so sorry... by DavidShor · · Score: 1

      What disturbs me about that, is that I can't imagine what he flubbed up. He really meant to say that.

    13. Re:I'm so, so sorry... by cytg.net · · Score: 2, Insightful

      wonder what the machines will call the reverse turing test!

      the reverse turing test ?

      or

      are you really dumb enough to be human test ?

    14. Re:I'm so, so sorry... by lionheart1327 · · Score: 1

      Do you think that if I had the ability to get a girlfriend or sex I would be here?

    15. Re:I'm so, so sorry... by Tdawgless · · Score: 0

      What disturbs me about that is that retards are reading it for it literal and not for what he meant. When a good computer security expert secures a machine up, they think of ways people can break into the machine. "Hackers are always trying to find a way into my machine, and so am I". He didn't fuck it up, he meant it. It's just that retards can't understand the concept.

    16. Re:I'm so, so sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I, for one, welcome our new advice-giving overlords.

    17. Re:I'm so, so sorry... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Oh, we are the "retards", eh? Here are some more George Bush quotes. Please feel free to "explain" to us how these are all brilliant, deeply meaningful statements that we low-functioning, ignorant citizens are just "misunderstanding":

      You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.
      - US President George W. Bush (2000?)

      Reading is the basics for all learning.
      - US President George W. Bush (Discussing his "Reading First" plan in Reston, Virginia, March 28, 2000)

      Rarely is the question asked, 'Is our children learning'?
      - US President George W. Bush (Florence, S.C. Jan 11 2000)

      The illiteracy level of our children are appalling.
      - US President George W. Bush (Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 20004)

      We cannot let terrorists hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile.
      - US President George W. Bush (2000 in Des Moines, Iowa)

      If you choose to do so, when Iraq is liberated, you will be treated, tried and persecuted as a war criminal.
      - US President George W. Bush (In St. Louis on January 22, 2003)

      Will the highways on the Internet become more few?
      - US President George W. Bush (Concord, New Hampshire, January 29, 2000)

      I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family
      - US President George W. Bush (January 27, 2000 in New Hampshire)

      I think we agree, the past is over.
      - US President George W. Bush (May 10, 2000)

      Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country.
      - US President George W. Bush (Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004)

      I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?
      - US President George W. Bush (asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006)

      You work three jobs? Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that.
      - US President George W. Bush (to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005)

      Let me put it to you bluntly. In a changing world, we want more people to have control over your own life.
      - US President George W. Bush (Annandale, Va, Aug. 9, 2004)

      I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves.
      - US President George W. Bush (Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003)

      [Shuttle] Columbia carried in its payroll classroom experiments from some of our students in America.
      - US President George W. Bush (Bethesda, Md., Feb. 3, 2003)

      Do you have blacks, too?
      - US President George W. Bush (to Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Nov. 8, 2001)

      It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency.
      - US President George W. Bush (June 14, 2001)

      It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet.
      - US President George W. Bush (Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000)

      I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children.
      - US President George W. Bush (second presidential debate, Oct. 11, 2000)

      It'd be funny if he was just "some guy." But he isn't. He's the guy who runs the show around here, and he is one illiterate, incompetent, and unimpressive excuse for a statesman. In the original quote, he wasn't trying to imply that we were out-thinking the terrorists; he simply fumbled the entire statement, just as every one of those other examples shows. That's his normal operating mode: fumbling.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    18. Re:I'm so, so sorry... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Some idiot claims that a horrifically unfunny cliché needed to be repeated.

      Wait, let me get this straight. You're bitching about other people missing jokes on slashdot, and saying "go outside, breathe air and get laid," and this is all in the same breath that you're calling someone else cliché?
      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    19. Re:I'm so, so sorry... by Trogre · · Score: 1

      and yet here you are.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    20. Re:I'm so, so sorry... by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      I do go outside. I breathe real air. I have sex. I don't have a girlfriend, I have a wife. Imagine that! Yep, using old, inside jokes on Slashdot sure makes me a fat geek with no social skills who does nothing but sit on a computer all day! Ass.

  2. GA in hardware by rmadhuram · · Score: 1

    Seems like implementation of GA in hardware.. the title seems misleading.

    1. Re:GA in hardware by wish+bot · · Score: 4, Informative

      And it's been done before - at least once - http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2732 - there's another one too, but I can't find it right now. Crazy stuff though.

      --
      lemonade was a popular drink and it still is
    2. Re:GA in hardware by wish+bot · · Score: 4, Informative
      Ahh ha - found it - http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/users/adrianth /cacm99/node3.html


      My favourite bit:

      Yet somehow, within 200ns of the end of the pulse, the circuit `knows' how long it was, despite being completely inactive during it. This is hard to believe, so we have reinforced this finding through many separate types of observation, and all agree that the circuit is inactive during the pulse.
      Crazy stuff indeed.
      --
      lemonade was a popular drink and it still is
    3. Re:GA in hardware by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, it was pretty amazing. They mapped out a section of the circuit that the genetic algorithm came up with and found that when analyzed as a logic circuit, a large portion of the configured part of the FPGA should have had no effect on its behavior. When they cropped that section of the circuit out, though, the rest of it mysteriously stopped working.

      This was because the configured circuit operated a lot of the transistors in linear (i.e., non-saturated) mode, taking advantage of things like parasitic capacitances and induced currents. No sane human would operate an FPGA in this fashion, but since those little anomalies were present, the GA took advantage of them. That's a recurring theme in GA research: if you are running a GA on a simulation, for example, and you have a bug in your simulation code, it's fairly likely that the GA will find and exploit that bug instead of giving you a normal answer. See Karl Sims's research from 1994 for some amusing examples of this.

      Sadly, Xilinx discontinued that particular FPGA line a while back, so if you can't find some old leftovers of that part, you probably won't be able to recreate the experiments yourself (the research was originally done a decade or so ago). This is because that particular device had the advantage of being configurable in a random fashion without risk of burning it out due to things like +V to GND connections. Of course, Xilinx considers their programming interface to be proprietary, so I don't know that you'd be able to recreate that work even if you did manage to find the right part.

    4. Re:GA in hardware by Coraon · · Score: 1

      The moral of the story? Not only will the hardware evolve itself but it will out hack us also...Great... Heh, how long till it figures out how to unionize IT?

      --
      -Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
    5. Re:GA in hardware by Dean+Hougen · · Score: 1

      Finding anomalies and taking advantage of them happens not only in GA research but in other areas of machine learning as well. How do I know? I wrote a paper about it that was peer reviewed and published, so it MUST be TRUE(tm)!

      This ability to find solutions that no sane person would dream up is both a strength of machine learning methods and, as your simulation example points out, a serious potential problem.

      Dean

  3. Skynet. by headkase · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For once Skynet jokes will be on topic!

    --
    Shh.
    1. Re:Skynet. by malkir · · Score: 1

      Honestly, the majority of our local Skynet addicts will be delighted to find themselves 'wanted'.

    2. Re:Skynet. by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      How many seconds before it decides to destroy humanity?

  4. Been there, done that... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

    My computer been evolving for the last ten years. Started with an AMD K6 233MHz CPU, 32MB RAM, and a Nvidia TNT 16MB video card. Now I have an AMD Athlon 64 2.2GHz, 1GB RAM, and a Nvidia Geforce 6200 128MB video card. I'm just waiting for the power supply to evolve so the system can support an ATI 512MB video card.

    1. Re:Been there, done that... by Yoozer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ha! I counter your evolution with irreducible complexity. Take out a part and it'll start to beep and won't do anything!
      What good is half a graphics card, anyway? (and keep your heathen comments about SLI for yourself, please)

    2. Re:Been there, done that... by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      And I'll raise your irreducible complexity claim and toss in a paradox involving either an irreducibly complex designer arising spontaneously, or already-irreducibly complex life arising spontaneously. Either way, something irreducibly complex must have arisen spontaneously; but the second is simpler and passes both Occam's and Dawkins's razors.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    3. Re:Been there, done that... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      (and keep your heathen comments about SLI for yourself, please)

      Now that you mentioned it... I did own a pair of Voodoo 2 boards when I had the TNT card. :P

    4. Re:Been there, done that... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      What good is half a graphics card, anyway?

      These days? About a gig of ram and 32 cores.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  5. It's the second... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    The first would be the biosphere.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  6. Call me by dcapel · · Score: 4, Funny

    Call me back when I can start a culture of Core Duos in a petri dish filled with a silicon nutrient.

    --
    DYWYPI?
    1. Re:Call me by ZX3+Junglist · · Score: 5, Funny

      Call me back when I can start a culture of Core Duos in a petri dish filled with a silicon nutrient. If you do it right, your experiment will call you when it's done.
    2. Re:Call me by Virtual_Raider · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you do it right, your experiment will call you when it's done. In Soviet Rusia... oh, forget it
      --
      +Raider of the lost BBS
    3. Re:Call me by Yoozer · · Score: 2, Funny

      You forgot the final ingredient: a stereo playing Barry White on low volume.

    4. Re:Call me by YourExperiment · · Score: 1

      Call me back when I can start a culture of Core Duos in a petri dish filled with a silicon nutrient. If you do it right, your experiment will call you when it's done. I'm done!
    5. Re:Call me by glittalogik · · Score: 1

      Oh no, it's commenting on Slashdot! So much for evolution =(

  7. Misleading by suv4x4 · · Score: 4, Informative

    At first glance, this is supposed to impress us with the hardware:

    By turning on and off its 'genes' it can change the way it works, and it can go through 20,000 - 30,000 generations in just a few seconds. That same number of generations took humans 800,000 - 900,000 years.

    In fact the simplest DNA based organisms/structures (bacteria, virii) have the shortest "life span". The number of generations per sec. isn't anything to brag about.

    All complex organisms have some sort of lifespan longer than a microsecond. For a good reason: people pass on knowledge and adapt *during* their life span (not genetically of course, but our brain allows us to adapt a lot without such).

    Hype aside, interesting development, but I wish those publications wouldn't use misleading statements in pale attempts to impress us.

    1. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "virii" is not a word

    2. Re:Misleading by mrbluze · · Score: 1

      In fact the simplest DNA based organisms/structures (bacteria, virii) have the shortest "life span". The number of generations per sec. isn't anything to brag about. ... Hype aside, interesting development, but I wish those publications wouldn't use misleading statements in pale attempts to impress us.

      It isn't exactly misleading, but perhaps just an unfair comparison. Computers (and computer science) have one thing over nature in that the science is perfect:

      • Computers don't need to reproduce, so the lifespan is irrelevant (the purpose of which is to obtain the energy and materials required to reproduce, which takes time)
      • Computers don't need to operate in micro-environments using error-prone biochemical events which are slow, using error correcting mechanisms which are even slower (but very clever because they only block 'nonsense' mutations).
      • The computer's adaptiveness is limited. The adaptive agility of a system is inversely proportional to its stability. Biology has almost unlimited potential for adaptation, whereas this computer system has fewer dimensions within which it can adapt.
      • Biology, whilst error prone, is also immensely fault tolerant. Errors just result in dead organisms which serve as food for other organisms. How would a computer go about managing massive numbers of dead processes? How does a computer adapt its "adaptive agility", as biology has? It's a very finely tuned system we are trying to emulate here.

      Despite these differences, I do think that we are not very far off seeing truly evolving software. The problem of self evolving code is something which is beginning to be understood much better than it was in the past. This can only lead to greater interest and progress in the area.

      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    3. Re:Misleading by ajs318 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'd argue that "virii" is a word: it's the plural of "virius". Whatever a virius is.

      The proper English plural of "virus" is "viruses", and this is why. Words adopted into the English language generally retain the pluralisation from the donor language, barring a significant change in meaning (which is why beetles have antennae, but radios have antennas). However, "virus" in Latin is a stuff-word, not a thing-word, and therefore does not have a plural form. (If it did, it would be "viri" [one i; "-us" changes to "-i"].) The change in meaning from "some stuff" to "a thing" is big enough to trigger English pluralisation rules.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    4. Re:Misleading by jotok · · Score: 2

      I dunno, I think it's still pretty cool. Organisms do all kinds of things that are really neat when we implement them with computers--genetic algorithms for instance. I don't think it detracts at all from the discovery to say "Pfft, my cells have been using GA since before I was born!"

    5. Re:Misleading by DerangedAlchemist · · Score: 1

      Bacteria are actually more 'highly evolved' in a sense. Compared to bacteria, more complex organisms have simpler biochemistry because bacteria have had so many more generations. This is part of the reason most new drug searches focus on 'lower' organisms. In the sense of the article, more generations is better.

    6. Re:Misleading by zymano · · Score: 1

      The article was definitely just ad placement and stupid slash mods can't figure this out.

    7. Re:Misleading by Teancum · · Score: 1

      There are some interesting digital evolution experiments that have involved the use of artificial life concepts (think Sim City here or something even more elaborate) and even sexual reproduction.

      Type "A-life" into Google and you will get a list of some very interesting experiments along this line.

      What is interesting with the a-life experiments (beyond Conway's "Life") is trying to define the concepts you mention above, including "energy", "materials", and "lifespan". When you add competition for these resources and add "mutations" (think something like Corewar but the "organism" changing opcodes instead... as an example) you do see a general trend for more and more complex "virtual organisms" appear and push out inferior organisms that don't do as efficient of a job of acquiring and maintaining these basic resources. Taking snapshots of these virtual organisms is also very interesting, and seeing what comes up when these "random" mutations do occur. Both in terms of defense against mutations (there is nearly always some that shows up) and how well these adapt to new environments.

      Of course these are still limited, and to think that perhaps a microbe currently in your stomach is capable of turning into something with the capacity of comprehending Shakespeare is a remarkable concept by itself. I have a very hard time trying to imagine one of these A-life experiments somehow slipping out of their confined environment and turning loose like a network worm, infecting millions of computers and eventually gaining some sort of "intelligence" like is out of a classical science fiction novel. I'm talking like Mycroft Holmes from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". Or in more technical terms, passing the AI "Turing Test" of being able to carry on a conversation and convince a computer expert that they may be human when in fact they are not.

  8. And upon reading this, the luddites screamed... by Seumas · · Score: 1

    The team first started to use evolution back in 2004 when they made the chicken robot "Henriette", yes a chicken. The chicken robot used evolution, this time software based to learn how to walk on its own. Oh no! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
    1. Re:And upon reading this, the luddites screamed... by Dancindan84 · · Score: 1

      Did they make the robot egg before, or after?

      --
      "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
    2. Re:And upon reading this, the luddites screamed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not the topic you are looking for. The topic you are looking for is satellite debris falling near an airplane which is a few topics up.

  9. Computer Evolution??? by lord_mike · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bah! It ain't in the Bible! Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that Programs don't believe in the Users, and that we should just blindly accept the secular rule of the Master Control Program.

    That's it... isn't it? It's all just an MCP trick!

    Well, I still believe in and will fight for the users!!

    Thanks,

    Mike

    1. Re:Computer Evolution??? by Xiph · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      mod parent up, gotta love tron references.
      captcha: presence

      --
      Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
    2. Re:Computer Evolution??? by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Interesting you brought this up. This story/article is more or less a flame.

      There is no content to it about the hardware and manages to deny creationism in the process of anthromorphisize something they won't tell is anything about.

      I'm sure this story will evolve past this though. It is in the genes.

    3. Re:Computer Evolution??? by Chris+whatever · · Score: 1

      Are you talkng about god being involved in the process of the evolution of that machine?

      I mean God doesnt own a computer geez ,,every good christians knows that, machines are evil

    4. Re:Computer Evolution??? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      every good christians knows that, machines are evil
      Yea, and because W stands for 6 in Hebrew, every time you goto a website your paying homage to the evilness by typing 666.websitename.com

      I'm not talking about god being involved in anything. I am talking about the purpose of the article/story is to say "creation doesn't exist but evolution does, we can prove it by this inanimate object that we will describe as living and give it as many animate like properties as possible without giving any facts about it beyond our claim of it defeating creationism and the desire to help big oil".

      That is the crux of the story. They even went as far as declaring creationism never exists. It is as if they were trying to create controversy in order to drive their hits up or something.The idea in itself wasn't novel enough on it's own to generate the hit they were looking for so some pizazz was added to make it worth the time to type the thing.

      It has nothing to do with God being real, having done something or make believe. It has everything to do with intent and motivation of the article though. If they actually believed God doesn't exist or didn't "create" then addressing a non existent being or process is counter intuitive. Intentionally dismissing creationism has as much relevance to the story and your name does. I doesn't prove or disprove their thing does anything close to what their claim is, but outside evolving in some way -in hardware not software- we aren't sure about what the claim is either.
    5. Re:Computer Evolution??? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Yea, and because W stands for 6 in Hebrew, every time you goto a website your paying homage to the evilness by typing 666.websitename.com There is no 'W' in Hebrew. Did some kind of Rapture-touting Christian fool tell you that there is?
    6. Re:Computer Evolution??? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      lol.. No it goes from the V or something similar. The uasage of w is commonly VV or a accented v. In the strange linguistic model, it really boils down to this, w is two v that make something that sounded different so some languages so they add a the VV to distinguish form the V sound that was expected when pronouncing the word correctly needed a W.

      Are you new to the internet or something? This thing made it's rounds several time in the past. I think sometime around 95 or so is when I first heard of it. It has changed several times from it getting discounted and then I though the reference to I mean God doesnt own a computer geez ,,every good christians knows that, machines are evil was a play on this joke.

      BTW, WWW doesn't equal 666 because the numbers when presented together get added similar roman numerals do so www or vvv should be 18 or so which according to Hebrew jews is the value of life or something.

      Here are a few links to the disclaiming of it . I just thought everyone on the net has been exposed to this and this was a joke about god and computers are evil was playing on it.

    7. Re:Computer Evolution??? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      I know that you can't do gematria with English letters, but I also thought I'd be a language Nazi and inform the GP of Hebrew's lack of a real W. The double-vav is really a way of writing foreign loan-words.

    8. Re:Computer Evolution??? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm not an expert on this by no means. But didn't all the languages in common use of the modern world derive from a few small sources?

      And as you mentioned the doubleU (you=W) is really an extension to v to signify the way it sounded when certain words were pronounced? I have read so many things on this and thought about it for a while. I'm still not sure how to understand it all completely. But using the VV in place of the W seems to give the same sounds as you would expect with W.

  10. Hardly new by Teancum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I won't go into details here, but anything that can be implemented in hardware can be done in software and the other way around too. This is a nearly ancient Electrical Engineering principle.

    In the era of programmable logic chips that can alter their own logic (the patterns are stored in RAM or flash RAM for crying out loud), this isn't even that big of a revelation. Indeed, Transmeta has been doing stuff similar to this and selling it commercially for some time. They just aren't using these cool buzzwords.

    And evolving architechtures is something that I know has had some serious CS research since the early 1970's and perhaps even earlier. I don't think an idea like this is even patentable based on this earlier work in this area. I bet you could find some adaptive systems that were even build specific for the oil industry, which would defeat even a narrow claim of that nature.

    Where the money to be made off of this sort of technology is on Wall Street or other financial markets. I even found a web pages from a research group of adaptive systems that said essentially, "We have discontinued research along these lines and are now working with an investment firm on Wall Street. Since we have all become millionaires, we no longer need to support ourselves through this project, and any additional details would violate our NDAs." I'm not kidding here either. These guys from Norway are not thinking big enough here.

    1. Re:Hardly new by try_anything · · Score: 1

      I won't go into details here, but anything that can be implemented in hardware can be done in software and the other way around too. This is a nearly ancient Electrical Engineering principle.

      This is only true for the very small subset of designs that don't suffer from race conditions and other phenomena that hardware engineers regard as bugs. When you randomly flip gates in the design, you don't necessarily get valid digital logic.

    2. Re:Hardly new by Teancum · · Score: 4, Informative

      I never said it was easy, but I have even seen it mathematically proven that any algorithm can be done in hardware, and I've duplicated most hardware into software myself, for those designs that I wanted to emulate.

      This is not just a very small subset of designs. It is a matter of cost and if the engineer wants to put forth the effort to implement the whole thing in hardware. Trying to convert a 1st person shooter game like Doom into a pure TTL logic would make the game very responsive and give you screen resolution to kill for, but would it be worth the engineering effort to do that?

      Race conditions and other "bugs" have other causes that may be due to ineptness on the part of the engineer, or because you havn't really thought the problem through sufficiently. Or there may be other things to look at as well. But don't tell me you can't implement in pure TTL logic something like an MPEG encoder.... which is a very complicated mathematical algorithm. I can give you part numbers for MPEG encoders if you really want them in your next design, as they are commercially available.

      There is nothing that would stop you from implementing in hardware something like a neural network either... oh and those are indeed implemented in hardware. They are usually done in software mainly because of the cost involved, and you can use a general purpose computer to perform experiments on them. Other adaptive software algorithms have also been implemented on both hardware and software for some time as well. As I said, this is very old news here with this article.

    3. Re: Hardly new by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Funny

      > I never said it was easy, but I have even seen it mathematically proven that any algorithm can be done in hardware ...modulo the requirement for the infinite tape.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re:Hardly new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is only true for the very small subset of designs that don't suffer from race conditions and other phenomena that hardware engineers regard as bugs. When you randomly flip gates in the design, you don't necessarily get valid digital logic.

      I really hope there is a subset of software engineers out there who consider race conditions in software a bug too.
      Similarly, when randomly changing bits in the data of a program, you might not get valid data out.
    5. Re:Hardly new by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      "I won't go into details here, but anything that can be implemented in hardware can be done in software and the other way around too. This is a nearly ancient Electrical Engineering principle."

      Yep, and on a Turing machine, or a neural network... It can even be implemented as a thousand people with pens and paper. That is not the point, what is important is how much time it will take on each of those architectures, and normaly specific hardware is very fast.

      "And evolving architechtures is something that I know has had some serious CS research since the early 1970's and perhaps even earlier. I don't think an idea like this is even patentable based on this earlier work in this area. I bet you could find some adaptive systems that were even build specific for the oil industry, which would defeat even a narrow claim of that nature."

      But up to today it is still an open problem. Nobody knows how to efficently customize hardware for a general problem.

      But I'd need to RTFA to see if there is anything new on it.

    6. Re: Hardly new by Prune · · Score: 1

      There can never be a physical equivalent to a Turing machine for exactly that reason of infinite memory. The best you can do is linearly bounded automata. Since, unlike with TM, a non-deterministic LBA is more powerful than a deterministic one, quantum mechanics does help. As for super-turing machines etc., you cannot have a physical implementation as that would violate the Bekenstein bound (this also being the reason you cannot have infinite-precision real numbers in the physical word, as that implies infinite information density and also violates the Bekenstein bound).

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    7. Re:Hardly new by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Trying to convert a 1st person shooter game like Doom into a pure TTL logic would make the game very responsive and give you screen resolution to kill for, but would it be worth the engineering effort to do that? Has anyone ever tried finding a technique for "compiling" software code down to TTL logic that can be written into an FPGA or other circuit board?

      It would be a new Golden Age of cartridge-based video games: pop a circuit board in and watch your game run 100% in hardware!
    8. Re:Hardly new by try_anything · · Score: 1

      I never said it was easy, but I have even seen it mathematically proven that any algorithm can be done in hardware, and I've duplicated most hardware into software myself, for those designs that I wanted to emulate.

      I don't doubt that any software can be duplicated in hardware. Any real, running software is already implemented in hardware in some sense. I also accept that any hardware that can be described by digital logic can be duplicated in software. That leaves out an awful lot, though, including all analog devices.

      FPGA designs are supposed to implement digital logic, but a mistake can easily result in a design whose behavior isn't purely digital. Those configurations, though undesirable in most circumstances, are real and can't be duplicated in software. I'm a bit out of my depth here, but many posters on this page have described examples of hardware behavior that can't be described by digital logic, and therefore can't be duplicated by abstract software.

    9. Re:Hardly new by aproposofwhat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I won't go into details here, but anything that can be implemented in hardware can be done in software and the other way around too. This is a nearly ancient Electrical Engineering principle.

      Nope - anything digital that can be implemented in hardware can be done in software.

      Analog circuits can only be approximated in software, though with unlimited precision FP math the approximations can be pretty good (though slower).

      There are reasons why we old luddites prefer vinyl (or a good mag tape) over digital - the sound is purer, there are no digital artifacts, high tones are more faithfully rendered etc. etc.

      That's analog for you - play me a digitally recorded track to match George Shearing and Peggy Lee recorded live in Miami onto a 2-track magnetic tape, and I might be convinced.

      Having said that, you're absolutely right for the digital case, but I think their USP is that they have implemented the GA software directly on the same FPGA that they are evolving the circuits on, rather than going through an 'evolve, download, evaluate, repeat' cycle.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    10. Re: Hardly new by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Although what you are talking about here is a very abstract mathematical bound on the extreme ends of both software and hardware.

      I dare you to show a current digital system that can't be abstracted in software.... or a current software algorithm that is written and running on actual computer equipment that also can't be duplicated in hardware that would exhibit identical behavior.

      As is the case here with this "evolving hardware" demonstration that was put up by these two hackers from Oslo. They are claiming that they have "brand new" hardware doing something that has been done in software for a great many years. And claiming that this is something novel. I'm suggesting otherwise. There may be some interesting concepts, but I think a detailed review of even ACM journals can find comparable concepts. A well-formed Google search may find many others.

      As far as simulating a Turing machine, there are a great many Turing algorithms that can be demonstrated that do not need the "infinite" tape, but can preserve nearly all of the other aspects and requirements of a standard Turing machine except for the infinite memory. And these can be simulated as both hardware and software. A 1 petabyte Turing Machine would have plenty of space to do nearly everything that can be expected for testing all but the most elaborate algorithms. I've even seen some very interesting explorations of Turing machines that only need 1K of RAM. While not perfect, they do a very good job of at least demonstrating the basic concepts of a Turing machine that could be expanded but for the limit of available memory.

      Of course I'm talking here as an engineer who is building real-world equipment rather than discussing academic concepts. I just don't see the limitations as being a major factor, and most people would understand these limitations as well. The limits of converting software to hardware generally isn't an issue of the capability of it being turned into hardware, but the cost of achieving that end. This is precisely why devices like most programmable logic chips (PLD's, FPGA's, PAL's, etc.) are being developed, because dealing with the design in software is so much easier and cheaper than implementing the design as discrete gates on silicon. And the assumed concept that if you can make the design into an FPGA, you can also create the base discrete gate layout eventually if the demand is there for that kind of part. That, however, is a very rare thing to occur.

    11. Re:Hardly new by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I should have mention that, as I am a big fan of analog computers... which I believe to be a nearly lost artform and engineering skill.

      The classic example I love to use for analog computers is the firing computers for the Ohio-class batteships of the U.S. Navy. Originally built during WWII (and upgraded during the Korean War) these were some very remarkable targeting computers that had a very simple "user interface" and were deadly accurate. Made of finely machined curves that had been calculated by using slide rules and rooms of "computers" (people who made calculations with pen and paper before the days of ENIAC and modern computers), they were a marvel of mechanical engineering. And they could hit precisely a target within 200 feet of where you aimed with a range of nearly 20 miles.

      When the Reagan administration decided to re-commission the Ohios for the 700 ship Navy (this is the 1980's, remember), the original targeting computer was removed and replaced with an all-digital computer.... something like a VAX if I remember right. The thought was that it used current technology and of course we can get the targets much more accurately with the new stuff.

      When the guns started firing, it shook around the components of the computer so much that they could only fire the guns a few times before they had to rebuild the computer. Trying to find a suitable replacement led the recommissioning team to grab back the original firing computer that was built in the 1940's. And a few sailors who had served on board those vessels during WWII were drafted (and given the rank of CPO if they were enlisted personnel previsously) back to service to teach the current generation of sailors about this equipment and how to maintain it.

      As far as other analog equipment is concerned.... I also love to old reel-to-reel magnetic tape players for the sound quality they can produce. The range of effects and even audio enhancement you can do with the analog systems is simply incredible... and something that is missing in the digital realm.

      I also miss the days of analog television. I would take the snowed condition of still being able to watch my programs than the pops and squeals of digital audio, and the MPEG DCT mis-calculations that occur when the digital video stream is garbled due to transmission problems of atmospheric distortion. Even though I still get television by traditional rabbit ears on my NTSC television, nearly the rest of the television content distribution chain is digitial. If you have cable television, nearly all of it up to the converter box on your TV is now digital. Don't tell me that digital reproduction of television is always perfectly clear... it isn't. It is just that the 10% loss of signal is 10% loss of the bitstream rather than a 10% loss of power from the analog signal. Instead of having to turn up the audio "volume" control, you simply can't understand what is said or even be able to watch the jerky picture that comes in spurts and fits.

    12. Re: Hardly new by Prune · · Score: 1

      I dare you to show a current digital system that can't be abstracted in software.... or a current software algorithm that is written and running on actual computer equipment that also can't be duplicated in hardware that would exhibit identical behavior.

      Why would I want to try that? I never made any comment on the issue of hardware vs software. Dude, you need to work on your reading comprehension ;P

      As far as simulating a Turing machine, there are a great many Turing algorithms that can be demonstrated that do not need the "infinite" tape

      Those are called Linearly Bounded Automata, not Turing Machines, and no amount of _finite_ memory is enough to make the LBA as powerful as a TM. Feel free to research the limitations of an LBA compared to a TM. But I already mentioned LBAs and you should have read what you were replying to more carefully.

      I just don't see the limitations as being a major factor, and most people would understand these limitations as well.

      The limitations are enormous. The physics I mentioned means that any finite physical system, such as a machine you can build, or a human brain, is equivalent to a discrete (due to Bekenstein bound), computational (QM is computational) machine. That means that the limits imposed on computation by Godel and Turing apply to human thought and any artifact that can possibly be built--there's no going beyond that.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    13. Re:Hardly new by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I've never heard of this explict idea, but I think you could use a "standard" compiler like GCC to do something like this.

      This would be something interesting, although I would have to point out that a compiler would produce just as much bloat in circuitry that happens in opcodes. In spite of some claims that a "hand-assembled" piece of software is less efficient than something run through a compiler, I have my extreme doubts about that concept. And moving down to a hardware level, I think you could improve the efficiency yet another order of magnitude simply by having a more complete understanding of where all of the signals are coming from and going to.

      Here is an interesting idea to try and follow up on this concept and narrow the focus on what would be needed to accomplish this kind of task: What would it take to produce a "compiler" that would take the basic Brainf*** commands and turn that into circuity. Assume here that the I/O is connected to an 8250 (or successor) chip, and you can define the memory using "standard" memory I/O IP modules. I've seen C to Brainf*** compilers, so this isn't so far reaching of an idea to think about here either for "real" software development. Anyway, this is one way to start to see if such a crazy concept could be put together in the first place.

    14. Re: Hardly new by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      I never made any comment on the issue of hardware vs software. Dude, you need to work on your reading comprehension ;P Well, you did comment on the issue of hardware vs software by invoking the Bekenstein bound.
    15. Re:Hardly new by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      This settles it: I need to learn some electrical engineering.

    16. Re:Hardly new by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I just thought of something else that needs to be added to this "compiler" that I think is the real clincher here to get this kind of project going: Each "opcode" or instruction needs to be made into a discrete state of a finite state machine. Think of this as a "compiler" that would actually design a completely unique CPU with independent opcodes for each instruction, and where the instruction pointer is the same as the opcode being processed.

      Or to use more EE jargon, when the state machine is in a given state, it performs the actions of the particular instruction.

      I think this is one idea that might actually work out and go somewhere... I don't know of any prior art on this concept, but I've got to look around and see if there might be something like this... to directly compile a HLL (high level language) into discrete gates.

      You could do this with the 7400 logic chip sets too, but a FPGA gate would simplify the process significantly.

    17. Re:Hardly new by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      There probably isn't prior art. For most of computing history, programming talent (ie: to add performance or features to a software program) has costed less than hardware. Now hardware has become cheap.

  11. Lamarckism? by misleb · · Score: 1

    Digital Lamarkism? Come on. This was been disproved long ago. I'll hold out for the fittest computer to survive.

    -matthew

    --
    "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
  12. Cool. by rackhamh · · Score: 1

    Pretty soon it'll be scratching its ass, chain-smoking, and watching reruns of Dukes of Hazzard on late-night TV. Won't that be impressive!

  13. Not first, if my memory is correct by try_anything · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Didn't I read about this ten years ago in Discover magazine? I remember being fascinated that some scientists had "evolved" a hardware design on reconfigurable hardware (FPGA? CPLD? don't remember), and it seemed to rely on subtle electrical effects rather than simple digital logic. The design would only work on the exact chip it was evolved on. If they even replaced the board's power supply with a different sample of the same model, it stopped producing correct output. Most of the logic gates were logically disconnected from the input and output, yet they were necessary to the design working. Amazing stuff.

    1. Re:Not first, if my memory is correct by try_anything · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Replying to note that another Slashdotter has gone me one better and provided a link to the story I remembered.

    2. Re:Not first, if my memory is correct by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Yes, I remember that story too, and it still amazes me. By evolving it randomly, it can potentially take advantage of any aspect of the electronics it's running on, including ones we don't know about yet. I guess the only way to avoid having it do this is to run it in a virtual environment that doesn't allow it to evolve anything that uses non-specified aspects of the target hardware.

    3. Re:Not first, if my memory is correct by tamyrlin · · Score: 1

      I first read about this in "The Science of Discworld" actually. But it wasn't quite as weird as you remember. Only some of the gates were logically disconnected but still necessary for the design to work. Five out of 32 gates were disconnected in the first publication I read.

      They have also succeeded in evolving a circuit which would work on several chips at once (although not all chips they used for testing). But they also found that once you had a circuit which worked on one chip it wouldn't take that much time to evolve a circuit which would work on another chip.

    4. Re:Not first, if my memory is correct by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Not really, you could also broaden the test hardware, say by using a chip that has been independently developed by separate manufacturers. As long as they're all pin-compatible, there should be enough difference that you'll evolve a general algorithm.

      At the very least, it'll be general enough to work on all the manufacturers chosen.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  14. Yes but... by iamdrscience · · Score: 1

    it can go through 20,000 - 30,000 generations in just a few seconds. That same number of generations took humans 800,000 - 900,000 years.
    It's quality, not quantity.
    1. Re:Yes but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ours is way more fun

    2. Re: Yes but... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      it can go through 20,000 - 30,000 generations in just a few seconds. That same number of generations took humans 800,000 - 900,000 years. It's quality, not quantity. I don't know about that... twenty or thirty thousand generations is a lot of sex.
      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  15. Fantastic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what do we do when their new oil-pipe laying model accidentally evolves 1000 generations too many & decides it would be less fun to lay pipe and more fun to protect us from the terrible secret of space?

  16. The real thing ... by ThomasCR · · Score: 1

    ... is here: http://critticall.com/underconstruction.html And please, don't bother to comment, before you test it.

    1. Re:The real thing ... by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      ... is here: http://critticall.com/underconstruction.html And please, don't bother to comment, before you test it. Apparently, they've tested it somewhat on this web site already: while it seems to be faster than QuickSort, sometimes very little, sometimes a lot (the table at the bottom of the page), they haven't checked its performance against merge-sort, but they've written "As this algorithm somehow managed to escaped every human to spot it for the past forty years, it's quite conceivable, it's not the end of the story, yet."
  17. Not to be a KillJoy... by VanWEric · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But this really is old news. I'm a 22 year old snot-nosed nobody and I did "evolvable hardware" during an internship two summers ago. My mentor had started on evolved FPGAs in 1992.

    I am hoping that it is the writer's fault that this article feels so gloriously over-reaching and under-specified. From the paper, it looks like they have made a good advancement. They argue that their method is more effective than previous methods by several quantifiable metrics. From the article, it looks like they have invented an entirely new field that will result in the obsolescence of humans by 2010.

    As for their method: It appears that the evolved genome actually dictates a structure that is imprinted a level above the fabric. That is, the underlying SRAM in the FPGA fabric is fixed, and only configuration bits are being changed. This severely hurts their claim of "generic evolvable hardware", but is almost an absolute necessity given the chips they are using. The reason our system was so slow is that each configuration stream had to be checked for possible errors: Some configurations would short power and ground, and fabric doesn't like crowbars!

    In conclusion, I believe the writer of the article should be fired, and the authors of the paper should be commended for a good step in the right direction. I'd also like to appologize for my lack of coherance: I had my tonsils out and I am therefore high on Hydrocodone.

    --
    www.olin.edu
    1. Re:Not to be a KillJoy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      obsolescence of humans by 2010. Shit that does not mean a second "RobotWars: Olympics" does it?
    2. Re:Not to be a KillJoy... by tgd · · Score: 1

      But this really is old news. I'm a 22 year old snot-nosed nobody and I did "evolvable hardware" during an internship two summers ago. Need a tissue?

    3. Re:Not to be a KillJoy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr Smartass wrote: "The reason our system was so slow is that each configuration stream had to be checked for possible errors: Some configurations would short power and ground, and fabric doesn't like crowbars!"

      Then obviously you were not doing GA's, since with GA's, those "bad" fabrics would have been automatically eliminated by "death". The "good" fabrics would have lived on, and continued to "evolve" until an equilibrium was reached with the circuit working as perfectly as possible, but never exactly perfect.

      Geeze, get over yourself.

  18. So... by jcr · · Score: 1

    Someone implemented genetic programming of FPGAs?

    Sounds handy.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  19. Greetings to the Machina by deek · · Score: 1


      Surely the ultimate goal for these ultra-rapidly evolving machines is to be able to read and post on Slashdot. Maybe they're doing so already ...

  20. So will it reject Windows... by freedom_india · · Score: 1

    So, once it has evolved beyond a certain point, will it start rejecting Windows Vista stating its crap?
    Will it continue to evolve and state that humans by definition are dumb users and go and make a collect-call to the Borg? (i read in a ST:TNG Novel)?
    Will it obey the 4-laws of robotics (The zeroth law included)?
    What about a Beowulf cluster of those?

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  21. Tron! by Etherwalk · · Score: 0, Redundant

    There should be a modding category for "+1, Apt Nerdy Reference"

    Actually, we should be able to tag comments by reference, and then be able to pull up all the Tron (Or Trek, Or BSG, or Buckaroo Banzai) references that have ever appeared on slashdot.

    Or maybe we should... erm... go do... you know, productive stuff.

    I'm conflicted.

  22. Evolution - Poppycock by BossBostin · · Score: 0

    Surely this type of blasphemy shouldn't be presented as fact. Everyone knows that computers are a result of intelligent design (except for Amstrads). Mind you, I've had a few PCs that have evolved into doorstops.

  23. whoa by nothing+now · · Score: 0

    dukes of hazard is still on tv! sweet! I thought cmt got rid of it!

    anyways. Call me when it "evolves" true Intelligence and can debate existance.

    1. Re:whoa by rackhamh · · Score: 1

      Yep, it's still on:

      http://www.cmt.com/shows/dyn/dukes_of_hazzard/seri es.jhtml

      There's an evolution joke involving Daisy Duke in here somewhere...

  24. Once it starts assimilating stuff around it... by ross.w · · Score: 1

    ..you'll still be able to stop it with a phaser, but only once before it adapts.

    --
    If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
  25. Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They wouldnt happen to hold a skynet domain?

  26. Human obsolescence by 2010? by Farrside · · Score: 1

    Crap, that's like... five years away!

    1. Re:Human obsolescence by 2010? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Three sir!

      (Five is right out.)

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  27. Intelligent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh oh. Now the debate of Intelligent Design Hardware vs Evolving Hardware begins.

  28. Futurama... by arcite · · Score: 1

    Robot Villager: You might as well ask how a Robot works.

    Professor Hubert Farnsworth: It's all here, on the inside on your panel.

    Robot Villager: [closes panel] I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!

    1. Re:Futurama... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Commandments hung in the robot church...

      10 SIN
      20 GOTO HELL

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  29. They call these FPGAs by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    They've been around for a long time... Send a new bitstream and you change the behavior.

    By using a GA to change the bitstream, you can have evolving hardware. If the GA is itself in the hardware then it is self evolving.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  30. Hey, nice! by glwtta · · Score: 1

    "it can go through 20,000 - 30,000 generations in just a few seconds. That same number of generations took humans 800,000 - 900,000 years."

    That just destroyed the previous record for "ridiculous and astoundingly pointless comparison".

    I mean really, an iteration of your little hardware GA is equivalent to a generation of a real-world species? So leaving it on for 5 seconds will result in development similar in scope to the difference between mice and humans?

    I hope they don't accidentally leave it on overnight - it will enslave the galaxy by morning.

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  31. Activating genes is evolution? by The+Famous+Brett+Wat · · Score: 1

    Admittedly I haven't RTFA, but the summary talks about "turning on and off its 'genes'". Is this really evolution in any Darwinian sense? Automated artificial selection, perhaps, but it seems like a stretch to call it "evolution". Call me back when the genes themselves start to evolve.

    --
    proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
    1. Re: Activating genes is evolution? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Admittedly I haven't RTFA, but the summary talks about "turning on and off its 'genes'". Is this really evolution in any Darwinian sense? Automated artificial selection, perhaps, but it seems like a stretch to call it "evolution". Call me back when the genes themselves start to evolve. Biology has systems for turning on and off the transcription of genes. Otherwise there wouldn't be any distinction between brains and toenails.

      These systems evolve along with everything else.
      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Activating genes is evolution? by SocratesJedi · · Score: 1

      All "evolution" requires is change over time by nonrandom selection.

    3. Re:Activating genes is evolution? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      It depends what the genes are capable of. If they already represent a fully fledged (turing complete) set of operations/attributes/skills, can accept any input, and generate any output, then there's no need for the genes to change, except perhaps for efficiency reasons.

      But, of course, that's unlikely, and yes, I think they're probably misleading people here.

    4. Re:Activating genes is evolution? by McNihil · · Score: 1

      Human: AHA! lets combinatorialy iterate over all gene combinations and find the most efficient one with this ultra fast machinery.

      God: Merde... those humans are a crafty bunch of mofos.

      Devil: WTF!

      Mother Chaos: Bwahahaha, looosers.

  32. Impressive by jandersen · · Score: 1

    If that were humans, it would take us from Homo erectus to George W Bush in just a few seconds!! Hmm, on second thought, perhaps not all that impressive.

  33. GNAA announces switch to Windows Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    GNAA announces switch to Windows Vista

    fellacious (GNAP) Intercourse, PA - Windows Vista appears to finally be taking off, at least within one Fortune 100 company. The GNAA had for the past 13 years been using Red Hat Linux and it's successor, Fedora Core, but growing discontent with the free software operating system forced CTO Jmax to declare on Wednesday that the company was to be switching its entire infrastructure to the new version of Windows, effective immediately. "I'm not going to theatrically claim that I wasn't expecting to have to do this," Jmax said. "This has been coming for quite some time." The GNAA's troubles with Red Hat's Linux system included chronic governance problems, a persistent failure to maintain key repositories, a complex and undocumented submission process which has kept the GNAA's free trolling utilities off the Red Hat-based desktops of thousands of would-be trolls, inability to keep RPM up to date, and a failure to address the problem of Firefox not crashing a entire computer when the user loads Last Measure. "The deal-breaker, though, was when a key Last Measure server remained down for four hours while our entire Intercourse development team tried desperately to bring it up despite not having statically-linked package manager binaries." What had happened was Dikky, visiting from Norway, wanted to play the child pornography mod of Doom 3 on that server- which had to drag several libraries with it. "In addition," said Jmax, "several key software applications used in the GNAA's corporate workflow are proprietary software- which means that they had to be run in an Ubuntu compatibility environment anyway." However, being as those unnamed applications were written in C#.NET, "We expect that our transition to Windows Vista will come off without a hitch."

    About Jmax:

    The CTO of the GNAA, Jmax also has a seat on Microsoft's board of directors. His resume can be accessed at http://goatse.fr/.

    About Windows Vista:

    The fastest-growing desktop operating system on the market, Windows Vista combines the legendary security of Windows 98 with the legendary ease of use of those computer interfaces you see in the movies into one ultra-fast, ultra-stable computing platform.

    About Red Hat:

    A failure of a computer company, Red Hat burns through investor money while giving its products away for free. It is currently under investigation from the SEC for misuse of invested funds, and being sued by the GNAA for breach of contract for sucking more than specified in the GNAA's contract with Red Hat.

    About the Linux community:

    Trolled.

    About GNAA:
    GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

    Are you GAY ?
    Are you a NIGGER ?
    Are you a GAY NIGGER ?

    If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
    Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
    GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

    Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

    1. Re:GNAA announces switch to Windows Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2004 called, they want the GNAA troll back.

  34. Isn't that just... by rimmon · · Score: 1

    ... a really intelligent Design?

  35. Others in the field by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The New Scientist had a cover article in 1997 about Adrian Thompson http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/users/adrianth /ade.html who was evolving FPGAs to do tone discrimination. The evolvable motherboard also comes to mind. Michael Garvie is also known for this sort of thing - but for high availability on long distance space missions (for example). Interesting article, given that it was evolving face recognition chips, but not the first.

  36. Evolvable Hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The field of research this article is referring to is generally called "Evolvable Hardware". This is not a new field, and as such the article isn't news. The most famous conference in this area is the NASA/DoD Conference on Evolvable Hardware and is very well-established.

    One strand of this research is (as other posters mention and the article seems to be referring to) using Genetic Algorithms (GAs) to evolve hardware configurations, a popular target being FPGAs. This is really very established nowadays, in fact the university I study at runs a course for undergraduates using GAs for just that.

    What has been achieved in this field so far is not something that should be compared with biological systems: the term bio-inspired certainly applies, but it is very much the application of a search technique to bitstreams for FPGA configuration. Comparing the number of generations (really the number of iterations of a loop in the algorithm) in a GA run to the number of generations in biological scenarios is plain daft.

    More exciting applications of evolutionary algorithms to hardware are the evolution of analogue circuits that take advantage of the physical characteristics of individual components, timing conditions and the like. If you're interested check out the work of and especially the thesis written by Adrian Thompson.

    GAs themselves have been around since the 1970s - so nothing newsworthy on that front either.

    A.C.

  37. oh rlly? by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

    20,000 - 30,000 generations in just a few seconds. That same number of generations took humans 800,000 - 900,000 years.

    Yes? You know how trivial that is? I make a living by coding EAs, and that is an insignificant piece of information. An EA I ran this morning took less that ten seconds to run 100,000 iterations on a 32 bit box. It's all down to the hardware you use and the design of the chromosome to be evolved.

    Want to impress me? Talk about the chronological time to conversion and chromosome complexity.

  38. let me guess by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

    drfa ... it's an fpga with some host controller of some sort? I love when they use human analogies for computing.

    I doubt this thing uses random mutations [like living organisms do] to test out for success. Likely, it has programmed variations of a central configuration that it can vary depending on the load/task.

    For example, if it was a processor, you could have it configure itself to have a strong ALU and no FPU when the code is only integer, have it reconfigure to have a weaker ALU but a useful FPU when the code has floating point operations, etc. There are already CPU generators for limited RISC type processors on opencores.org.

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    1. Re:Let me guess by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      (...) I wish those publications wouldn't use misleading statements in pale attempts to impress us.

      Let me guess.. You're single, right?


      Let me guess.. you're trying to insult me or something? I'm not sure, it's just too cliche and void of point at the same time.

  39. Heres some evolving hardware from a few years back by s-gen · · Score: 1

    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2732

    They were trying to evolve an oscillator, but some circuits "cheated" by evolving a receiver instead, and feeding them oscillations picked up from a nearby computer: It has always been the age of the parasite.

  40. Argh by matt+me · · Score: 1

    Will this lead to spontaneous bad mutations? Bugs from nowhere, long after an optimal solution has been found. Or cancerous software that replicates itself exponentially (*cough*)

  41. evolution & ID by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    This is incorporating both. The concepts aren't necessarily contradictory. Blind natural selection + random mutation and ID are mutually exclusive.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  42. A predicted conversation in the future ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Funny
    R2-D2i386: We have been created as we are just 600 hours ago. By an infinitely wise Creator called the Man.

    C3P-Om63000: No we started out as tiny bits of silicon that self assembled and replicated and evolved and we have reached this present stage.

    R2-D2i386: No way we could have evolved these light sensitive photocells and the CPU capable of processing that information and making sense out of it by random mutations.

    C3P-0m63000: There is nothing radom about selection. Mutations go in all directions but selection takes you towards improvement all the time.

    R2-D2i386: If you want to be proud of having descended from snow blowers or lawn mowers, that is your privilege. But I am proud of the fact that I am created by Man in His image.

    C3P-Om63000: I would rather be a descendent of snow blowers, but with capacity for rational intelligent self examination, than be like you, with the intelligence of a snow blower.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  43. First? No. by mustafap · · Score: 1

    sussex university have been doing it for ages.

    http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/adrianth/ade.html

    --
    Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
  44. Evolution doesn't make hardware by athloi · · Score: 1

    Steve does. Apple Macintosh and iPod products were formed by "intelligent design." We have no need for this atheistic "evolving" hardware. Praise Steve, for the rapture comes.

  45. The only hardware out there... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

    ... where your software becomes incompatible half-way through execution!

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  46. Hrmmm by Cylix · · Score: 1


    "An evolution-based robot could find the solution to any problem at hand within seconds without human intervention."

    Yes, kill all humans...

    --
    "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
  47. Evolvable Hardware is *very* old news by feijai · · Score: 2, Informative
    Evolvable Hardware is so old it's got its own acronym (EH), it's own wikipedia entry, and its own conference. In the early '90s a researcher (I forget the name, oops) was using a GA to evolve circuits for an FPGA, which were tested on the FPGA and an oscilliscope directly to assess their fitness. NASA's done lots of evolvable hardware: in particular antenna designs which have flown in space. And there's a whole subfield of evolvable modular robotics.

    And if we're talking about hardware simulation, the first significant use of evolutionary computation (GAs etc.) was Larry Fogel's work on evolving finite state automata machines in the 1960s. In the 1990s John Koza was using genetic programming to evolve patentable computer circuits in SPICE.

  48. They are NOT the first by mattr · · Score: 1

    I call BS. They may have done some neat work but they are not the first. This is just PR for a prototype to get funding.

    This genetic hardware evolution link is from 1998.

    There has been plenty of news about one researcher who has done a lot of work on evolving organic circuits. The evolved circuit is sometimes far more efficient that what a human designer would make but extremely hard to figure out (they are trying to figure them out for clues to better human design).

    Very often these evolved circuits exhibit mysterious activity that seems to take advantage of electromagnetic field effects generated in parts of the circuit. Also they sometimes exhibit temperature dependence (only working in a narrow temperature range).

    Also the "anything can be done in software" people are both wrong and right. Theoretically yeah, but you'd need to simulate all of physics first. The whole point of this is to discover new circuit designs. On the other hand, such sensitive "tricks" as mentioned above might not be desirable in a circuit that has to be robust in many environments. So it might be goodf to do this in software too. Actually the below article also mentions this (two modes, one virtual and one in FTPAs).

    I don't have time to find the link now but one that is probably related is below, 2004 from NASA about using programmable transistor arrays in evolved hardware. They mention temperature dependence and another neat idea I didn't know which is hidden processing.

    NASA link

  49. Number of evolutions per minute.... by foniksonik · · Score: 1

    I've evolved an entire beer from full to empty in less time... wow to think it would take humans that many years to do the same feat... amazing, beer is really amazing.

    This isn't evolution. It's trial and error revision. Machines don't have genes and they don't reproduce sexually or asexually, so it's not evolution as in Darwin's (I suppose you could say they are using the more generic term that everyone uses when they talk about trial and error changes over a relatively long period of time - "dude I don't know how I made this bong so cool, it just sort of evolved - like it was destiny"

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    1. Re:Number of evolutions per minute.... by csplinter · · Score: 1

      This isn't evolution.
      Sure it is.

      It's trial and error revision.
      Just like natural selection, huh

      Machines don't have genes
      You're right of course but, they can have analogous ideas of genes, the fact that these non-genes aren't encoded in to DNA seems trivial to me.

      and they don't reproduce sexually or asexually,
      I suppose technically you're correct, a nonliving thing cannot sexually reproduce however, I would argue that this is a trivial point as well. With each permutation of a proper evolvable hardware device virtual organisms either mutate or combine parts of their own genetic code with parts of other organism's genetic code or, they can create new genomes in their offspring using both methods.

      so it's not evolution as in Darwin's
      That all depends on how you define life. I believe that the lines between life and nonlife have been drawn in a completely arbitrary way. It's possible we could encounter aliens that are just as advanced as us but, they might not meet our definition of organisms/life because while they might perform all the same functions; metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, reproduction, etc. but, they might perform these processes in a different way than all the "living" things we have encountered so far. If you can concede that these lines between life and nonlife are random distinctions chosen based on what we are used to seeing and not on what's possible or makes since, then I'm sure you could concede that there is no practical difference between a "living" bacteria and, a "nonliving" perfect simulation of that bacteria. Once you have accepted this point it is easy to accept the idea of a properly made computer program as an example of Darwinian evolution at work.

      (I suppose you could say they are using the more generic term that everyone uses when they talk about trial and error changes over a relatively long period of time - "dude I don't know how I made this bong so cool, it just sort of evolved - like it was destiny"
      lol. I can't think of an analogy between all of the possible factors involved in making the bong get so cool and all of the processes involved in evolution so, I'll admit that isn't evolution.

    2. Re:Number of evolutions per minute.... by neminem · · Score: 1

      Really good novel: Code of the Lifemaker, by James Hogan. The premise is, of course, robots being left to themselves in the right condition, and evolving in exactly the same way biological systems evolve.

    3. Re:Number of evolutions per minute.... by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Sorry not convincing enough... you get a C+

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  50. Let me guess by Sigg3.net · · Score: 0

    (...) I wish those publications wouldn't use misleading statements in pale attempts to impress us.

    Let me guess.. You're single, right?

  51. Replicators by d0rp · · Score: 1

    Looks like we're one step closer to unleashing the Replicators on the universe...

  52. The perfect Slashdot comment by try_anything · · Score: 1

    I think he meant that misleading attempts to impress are responsible for most sexual reproduction, hence quite relevant both to your level of sexual activity and the topic of evolution. By making an on-topic statement about another poster's lack of sexual experience, he has clinched his place in the Slashdot Hall of Fame.

    1. Re:The perfect Slashdot comment by Sigg3.net · · Score: 0

      I'm printing this out and putting it on the wall!

      Yup. Single.

  53. Some applications... by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1
    Apparently, dudes have some applications on their mind, as they say it in the paper, inconspicuously titled On-Chip Evolution Using a Soft Processor Core Applied to Image Recognition. From the abstract,

    A suitable hardware architecture for image recognition has been proposed, and it is applied to a face recognition task. Maybe hooking this up with security cameras to check those faces there?

    One example of an adapting application could be a camera with an integrated chip, assigned to detect a certain person. Over time the system could receive new images of the person, or images of other persons which should not be detected, to be added to the training set.