Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Build Evolving Brain Computer?

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."

13 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. So... by the_one_wesp · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:So... by krnpimpsta · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      fixed that for you

      --

      New webcomic updated on Sundays: HERE

  2. Your Tunneling Microscope Programmer by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  3. First complex problem . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  4. Goddamnit, no. by IICV · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    1. Re:Goddamnit, no. by jadin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Two states ought to be enough for everybody?

    2. Re:Goddamnit, no. by Dersaidin · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    3. Re:Goddamnit, no. by somersault · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Apparently this is obligatory, so I'd better post it

      --
      which is totally what she said
  5. Intelligently designed to evolve by iconic999 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Intelligently designed to evolve. I love it!

  6. Re:Bases by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

    All four bases are belong to us!

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  7. Re:IMHO by OneAhead · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

  8. Re:The Matrix by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 4, Funny

    Isn't that how the Matrix supposedly started?

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

    --
    Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
  9. As far as you know... by joeyblades · · Score: 3, Informative

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

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

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