Slashdot Mirror
IBM Eyes Brain-Like Computing
schliz writes "IBM's research director John E Kelly III has delivered an academic lecture in Australia, outlining its 'cognitive computing' aims and efforts as the 70-year 'programmable computing' era comes to a close. He spoke about Watson — the 'glimpse' of cognitive computing that beat humans at Jeopardy! in Feb — and efforts to mimic biological neurons and synapses on 'multi-state' chips. Computers that function like brains, he said, are needed to make sense of exascale data centers of the future."
This message paid for by the Blue Brain Project
If it turns physco, maybe we can make it a CEO.
As processing power and storage capacity mushroom, eventually it becomes easier just to program a neural network and teach the computer through trial and error. No specific programming required. Sounds like a waste to me. I wonder how easy it'll be to break into these things? Tell them upsetting stories about their 'childhood' or ask non sequitur questions until they crash and allow full access.
Indeed, that has been proposed as the future...
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Just Google for the PBS Nova episode on Watson. It's not self-aware, but if it was, he would have HAL today! Mind blowing achievement that I think gets little attention. If only we could pair the Siri interface with Watson, and have him tie back to Google, Wikipedia, and Wolfram Alpha, the amount of discoveries we could make would happen in weeks if not days.
I'm convinced this will be the case. The logic is almost there, and the hardware just needs a few more generations to shrink them into a home PC. But oh-my-God... would this not turn the global economy upside down and inside out? It would bust open entire paradigm shifts more so that what the Internet has done in the last 10 years alone. Scary and exciting at the same time.
Life is not for the lazy.
Watson isn't making new data, he doesn't form any new ideas or concepts; I see no threat to my Software Engineering job. The only way this might be possible is to accurately virtualize every atom in a living organism, and hope it doesn't freak out when its surrounded by an infinite void... wait a minute?
Yes, .especially now that computers are being implanted in people's brains while they are unconscious, without their knowledge or consent. The "synthetic telepathy" application of the technology is a nightmarish violation of human rights and something needs to be done to put a stop to these abuses ASAP.
firstly they so should have named Watson Multivac. Secondly as for the idea that we will someday no longer need programming languages and to simply state what we want and it magically write compile debug and give you exactly what you want not likely. first of all computers are very dumb they are like idiot savants what they do they do very well and very quickly, but they are still stupid and need to to given very explicit instructions, they have a bad habit of doing exactly what you tell them and not what you want. If you do not cover every possible contingency they have a habit of exploding and sometime letting out the magic smoke. self writing programs will blow up. bugs will only self perpetuate if people spend less time paying attention to the code, remember linus law? it also works backward less eyes deeper bugs.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
The IBM guy is making a reasonable prediction, only about fifty years too soon.
What Watson has shown is that AI (which today is more about cloud computing and Moore's Law than anything McCarthy, Newell, and Minsky would have foreseen) is well positioned to become the search engine technology of choice. Notice that human experts are still required to assess, modify, or possibly reject the results. That's only a small part of what computers need to be programmed to do.
I don't know why they are bothering - Skynet was implemented on April 19, 2011 so it's too late anyway
This is kind of off topic, but this reminds me of an article I read (maybe in time magazine) that was about how in the next 40 years or so we will have computers powerful enough to emulate a human brain. The point of the article was that once we reach that capability, humans will basically become immortal because we would just copy our brains onto a computer and not have to worry about our fragile organic bodies failing on us.
It's very interesting to think about all the effects a breakthrough like that would have on humanity, but I also wonder if something like that is even possible. Just because we can emulate the human brain doesn't mean we can transfer information off of our current brains. Even if we can transfer the information, will our consciousness with a computer brain be the same as our consciousness with an organic brain or will we experience the world completely different than we do now? Once we have eternal life as computers do we even bother reproducing anymore? If our only existence becomes as pieces of data in a computer are we even humans at that point? And is the real way humans wind up going extinct just the result of a power outage at the datacenter where we keep our brains?
Like I said, this was pretty off topic. But the title reminded me of that article I read. This might be it, I'm not sure though.
If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
With the end of the desktop, it makes sense that the end of "programmable computing" is at hand (followed surely by the year of linux on the desktop). That said, imagine how amusing it would be if there was a union to protect programmers (hah, no more 100 hour weeks!). I can see them working to protect the jobs this inevitable innovation will extinguish. Whatever, onto the next thing, until every useful human task including innovation itself is taken over by the machines. At which point we'll still bright futures as investment bankers and politicians.
So kill it every night, restore from ROM, and it'll be reborn as an innocent every morning.
And it's been around for many years.
the idea that desktop computing is dead and that we are in a post pc world makes me giggle, just where do people think the programs are going to be made for there phones and tablets i would like to see some one try writing even a small program on iphone. writing, compiling (which can take a long time eve on a descent desktop, would be unimaginable) and debugged on such a form factor would be ridiculousness. and there are thousands uses for a pc that would be horrible on a tablet, all office work for starters, hard core gaming (pc gaming is infinitely better than console gaming, and tablet is worse yet. no no no. ) tablets are for notes, chat, reading, tv, and amusing flash games. desktops sales are not by the way dropping they are simply not growing as much as they were. tablet and smart phones are selling like pancakes because until the last few years no one had a affordable smart phone. it will level out soon. people try to draw an analogy between the mainframe and the desktop, that argument is fundamentally flawed, because mainframes were never a device aimed at individual use. and the day of the mainframe never ended it just specialized, we now call them servers, privet clouds, etc, and there are more mainframes sold now than ever before, they are not the growth market any more.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The human brain is remarkable, but it is also loaded with problems. We expect computers to be exact, and we raise hell when they're off even the slightest. Brains, on the other hand, make errors all the time. If we tried to use anything brain-like to do even a small fraction of what we use computers for today, they would be totally inadequate. A much better option, IMHO, would be to use programmable computers for the vast majority of tasks, and brain-like computers only for things the programmable ones couldn't do.
Neuron-based computers may indeed become popular and lead to many new developments but... it's difficult to say if it's a hammer that can replace EVERYTHING that computers can do. The logical structure of regular computers are great for some things but horrible for others. I would assume the same is true for neuron based computers as it's difficult to imagine the human brain performing some things computers do even if they had control over the process.
If anything, why can't the two systems co-exists, much like cpu and gpus. There is no technical reasons why the two systems can't communicate though probably difficult.
At least they wont bitch about the eternal beauty of their images like Dorian did!
regards,
Basil Hallward
-- no sig today
IBM's claims in this field have been seriously questioned. From several years ago: I agreed with with Henry Markram's critique of Dharmendra Modha.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-11/blue-brain-scientist-denounces-ibms-claim-cat-brain-simulation-shameful-and-unethical
http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/catbrain-fever
Is IBM really trying to go somewhere with this propaganda? Repeated heavy handed feints in this direction over years suggests so.
I actually kinda like the idea of being smarter than my computer, that's why I hope this doesn't happen.
Know of any Brains that can handle exascale data? Thought so. End of programmable computing my arse.
From what i've learned, your self awareness, long and short term memory and a fear of death equate to sentience. if you wanted to copy someone it would be easy but from that point on you would just have everything in common until you started to make different choices.
If instead there was a way to slowly replace your brain with mechanical/electrical/nanotech over a period of time then you would be more or less the same person with the same consciousness. However you would have to make sacrifices, it would have to be all or nothing, our bodies immune system doesnt take kindly to invading forces.
So you have to give up your junk for immortality.. i would. Since in my new mind i could holodeck anything i wish for :)
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/10/14/0031252/ibm-eyes-brain-like-computing
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/10/13/2224205/scientists-developed-artificial-structures-that-can-self-replicate
You get an android!
Have you ever wondered what would happen if the was a Darlik compiler controlling things here behind the scenes at Google?
Perhaps this is why they look like this.....exterminate exterminate
http://www.google.ca/search?q=android+icon&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=xxGYTo3kF-idiQKIjLC5DQ&ved=0CEUQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=601
Asgard – eventual extinction due to the lack of continued genetic evolution.
Seaquest DSV – computer brings submarine to the future to turn off electronic devices to save mankind from extinction.
Based on assumptions.
No one has or can prove this either way up to now. If the brain is just a biological machine, then like all machines it can be emulated by a turing machine and so all its functions, including emotions, can be expressed and realized by a computer (or robot if you want to get physical.)
If the brain is not just a biological machine - then all bets are off and a scientific worldview as we know it is based on seriously faulty assumptions. In that case the philosophers and theologians reign.
Your choice.
IBM seems to think that if you only had a sufficient number of neuron-like (whatever that may be) connections, a brain (whatever that may be) will automagically appear.
There's no good reason to have blind faith in this notion, and it's not likely to be any more likely than more than 60 years of fabulously wild predictions of what computers will do in the next n years.
But it's not impossible, and three cheers for IBM for throwing wads of cash into the game. It'd be great if other big outfits chased dreams like this.
----------------
Unbiased Eye