DARPA's Latest Chip Is Designed To Be Bad At Arithmetic (technologyreview.com)

Reader holy_calamity writes: Pentagon research agency DARPA has funded the creation of a chip incapable of correct arithmetic, in the hope of making computers better at understanding the real world. A chip that can't guarantee that every calculation is perfect can still get good results on many problems but needs fewer circuits and burns less energy, says Joseph Bates, cofounder and CEO of Singular Computing. The S1 chip can process noisy data like video very efficiently because it doesn't need the extra circuits or operations needed to ensure every mathematical operation is performed perfectly. This summer DARPA will put five prototype computers, each equipped with 16 of the inexact S1 chips, online for researchers to experiment with.

Comments

Intel already tried something similar

[marius.muja]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: Intel already tried something similar

[Anonymous Coward]

Graphics cards already do something similar and approximate on some calculations. The eye won't see the difference so it saves die area, power etc.

For things like opencl, the cards have to be put into a special mode or corrections applied to make FOPs comply with IEEE standards.

Re:Intel already tried something similar

[aliquis]

Explains how the Swedish government calculates the budget and the result of welfare migrants from all over the world.

Re:Intel already tried something similar

[Pfhorrest]

Daisy, daisy
Give me your answer do
I'm half crazy
Can't divide three by two
All my answers
I can't see 'em
They are stuck
In my Pentium
I could be sweet
My answers fleet
With a workable FPU

-David Pogue, probably

Re:Intel already tried something similar

[Locke2005]

At Intel, quality is job 0.9999999998!

Re:Intel already tried something similar

[Zontar The Mindless]

No. But it might explain why the Swedish government lets all you slackers get away with abusing parental and sick leave while we immigrants actually show up for and perform the work and pay the taxes to finance your permanent vacations.

Re:Intel already tried something similar

[aliquis]

No. But it might explain why the Swedish government lets all you slackers get away with abusing parental and sick leave while we immigrants actually show up for and perform the work and pay the taxes to finance your permanent vacations.

All the citizens of course have the same right to both of them?
The immigrants work less, earn less, pay less in taxes, use up more of the social welfare, ..

Your scenario isn't the typical one and complete BS. For all I care ditch the welfare state altogether and both issues will be resolved.

Re: Intel already tried something similar

[ibib]

If you don't like our welfare state, you are more than welcome to move to another country where your demands for no taxes and no service will be served.

Re:Intel already tried something similar

[Anonymous Coward]

The Intel issue didn't really save energy. It saved a few transistors, but not enough to matter.

The issue is that doing division on a CPU is very time consuming. To speed up the division, the actual division is assisted by a lookup table. It works well as long as every number in the table is correct. Intel forgot to specify 4 numbers in that table and the optimization software attempted to remove as many transistors as possible, it detected those numbers as "don't care" and just filled them with whatever numbers would use the fewest transistors. Naturally the resulting numbers didn't match up with what would be needed from a mathematical point of view and the CPUs became buggy.

Most jokes about this fail to get what actually happened. It's not a random number generator because doing the same division 10 times would give the same result 10 times. It might not be correct mathematically, but it would not introduce an element of randomness. Also it's a rare case in division and the rest of the CPU would be fine. This mean it would never go 1+1=1.9999, because addition would never trigger the affected area of the CPU. On top of that, the issue only affects floating point, not int calculations.

Having said that, the issue is still a severe one. CPUs should be bug free. "Mostly working" is not good enough. If software crashes one out of a million times at startup, it would still be usable. If a CPU behaves incorrectly one out of a million cycles, it would fail 3000-4000 times a second. This mean a faulty CPU is unacceptable. Intel made a bug, which happens. Their quality control failed to detect it before mass production, which I view as a worse issue than making the bug in the first place.

Re: Intel already tried something similar

[GLMDesigns]

Where is this other country that you speak of?

Re: Intel already tried something similar

[aliquis]

If you don't like our welfare state, you are more than welcome to move to another country where your demands for no taxes and no service will be served.

I don't want to move. I want to be free.

The problem is that the rats they are letting in will vote for more benefits for themselves just making it worse.

IMHO they don't have the right to it and to plunder or restrict people whatever they vote for and are the majority or not.

Simple Solution

[cogeek]

Just program the chips to use Common Core math

Re:Simple Solution

[werepants]

I know whining about common core is a popular pastime among people who have an irrational fear of change, but have you ever taken more than a few seconds to actually look at how common core teaches things? It has much more in common with real mental arithmetic than the standard method we all learned in grade school, and is very intuitive if you actually take a moment to understand it.

It's funny, because most of the complaints I've seen cherry-pick examples to intentionally make common core look more complex, but gloss over the convoluted aspects of the standard method (75+22 makes standard method look obvious, but 99 + 99 has many more steps because of the carrying). I for one (and probably most people) never actually carry numbers mentally - in the previous example I would add 100 + 100 and then subtract two, or some other shortcut that fits with human cognition rather than optimizing to be easy to write on a whiteboard.

Re:Simple Solution

[cogeek]

Thanks for jumping to conclusions, but I happen to have a BS in Civil Engineering, so I've done my share of math. I also have 4 children currently ranging from HS to College level and all have experienced Common Core to varying degrees. I did my homework when Common Core was first being discussed and all the way through it being shoved down my childrens' and their teachers' throats, have you? It was approved by one individual to the outcry of every single other person on the review board. It's complete and utter rubbish. Anytime you'd like to sit down and solve a complex math problem using your Common Core vs my usage of Common Sense, please let me know. I'll even give you a 10 minute head start.

Re:Simple Solution

[Kneo24]

Well, I guess I'm not normal, as I tend do both methods depending on the situation. If I'm strapped for time, I go the shortcut route. If I'm not strapped for time, I enjoy the small bit of mental work that it requires, which really isn't all that much.

Re:Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

He never said you haven't done math. Just that you have an irrational fear of change.

Re:Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what some people find disappointing about the latest math teaching methods is with 'group grading'.

That may or may not actually be a part of "common core", but it is a change that I've seen in Washington and Oregon schools over the last decade along with common core. I've seen multiple parents pull their kids out of public schools in the last 10 years and send them off to private school after their kids were getting lower grades than they should, yet answering all questions correctly on homework and tests. Mostly, homework scores were pulling the grades down because they would get D's since the majority of the people in their group were getting F's and score was averaged for the group.

Re:Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't irrational if the concepts or ideas that come after are blatantly inferior to the way things used to be.

That is called "devolution".

Re:Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because Amerikan kids are great at math today. Oh, wait, they're not! Blaming Common Core for a problem that's been around a lot longer than Common Core is not common sense.

Re:Simple Solution

[Dadoo]

Thanks for jumping to conclusions, but I happen to have a BS in Civil Engineering, so I've done my share of math.

I guess I'd have to ask what's wrong with you, then. Ever since I started helping my kids on their homework, I've started doing math their way, since it's much easier to do in your head.

Re:Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words you've overlearned (in the technical sense) one particular way of doing things. I think that makes you exactly the wrong person to judge whether another method is better.

Consider this: what if the old method was easier to learn for people who are technically inclined (e.g. you) but the new Common Core method is easier to learn for the other 80-90% of the class? Of course you prefer the way which makes sense to you, but remember that teachers have to teach everyone, not just the people with a particular interest in or affinity for a subject. Next question: how would you know? Do you have the skillset required to figure out whether a large, diverse group like a school full of kids learn better the old way or the new way. Your own family is of course a biased sample since they're learning from you.

I'm inclined to think that people who study learning know more about teaching a subject than people who know a subject well. Doing and teaching are just different skillsets. That's why teachers and psychologists should be making these decisions. Of course my BA was in Psychology (though I work as a sysadmin) so maybe I'm biased. But then aren't we all biased towards thinking that people like us know the right way to do things? *cough* *cough*

Re:Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol at the backlash against the backlash against common core.

People will argue any stupid position to be a fucking contrarian. Common core is shit and a huge waste of time. Instead of memorizing "9x9=81" they go through a bunch of nonsense to "work it out". Instead, just memorize it and move on to more interesting types of problems.

And along with Common Core comes Testing. And more Testing. And preparing for Testing. Oh, then more testing. Basically my kid spends her time in either reading, math, or "misc" with "misc" being precious little.

We're raising a generation of idiots who are good at taking reading and arithmetic tests and little else.

As for the tard below blathering about "American kids bad at math" - nice try. We're bad at math in the same way we have a "gun problem". Namely, if you let me put 6 quarters on a normal sized map of the US and exclude those areas from the stats we're doing fine.

Re:Simple Solution

[MightyYar]

To be strictly pedantic about the whole thing... I agree that the curriculum foisted upon us under the guise of "common core" has been terrible to date. However, this crappy way to teach math existed prior to "common core" and just happens to have the new sticker on it. The one our school used was "Everyday Math" from the University of Chicago. Horrendous. Common Core does not require this kind of teaching, and sticking with Common Core as a philosophy may actually see this style of kitchen sink mathematics disappear since evidence of success is one of the tenets.

Re:Simple Solution

[MightyYar]

The problem is that there is a fundamental disconnect between the people who devised these new methods of instruction and the materials and curricula which use the new methods. There is nothing wrong with teachers arming themselves with several different ways to teach a particular math concept. Some gets won't "get it" using one method, and so you have these other two which you can draw upon.

The problem is that they force the kids to learn all three methods. They then practice all three methods in the same time space that used to be allotted for one method, more or less. In addition to confusing kids who would have "gotten it" the first time, it significantly reduces total practice time for whatever method they do eventually settle on. I think that the teacher should introduce a single method of their choosing, and then use their discretion to apply the other methods. Then each child should practice their chosen/assigned method until it is mastered.

Either that or give kids 3x the math instruction so that they can learn all of the new methods, which I think is an insane choice.

I think you'll find teachers, on the whole, a bit dissatisfied with the new approaches. So it's not just us engineer types who had no trouble learning the older style math.

Re:Simple Solution

[Pfhorrest]

There's no way in hell you're old enough to have kids in college and yet you had Common Core homework yourself. The standard development didn't begin until 2009, the report calling for standards wasn't even issued until 2004, and the organization that issued that report didn't exist until 1996. Maybe you were still in school 20 years ago and have 20-ish kids in college now, but Common Core was barely a twinkle some people's eyes back then.

Re:Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Anytime you'd like to sit down and solve a complex math problem using your Common Core vs my usage of Common Sense, please let me know. I'll even give you a 10 minute head start.

First off, as they say, common sense isn't common. You weren't born with an intrinsic ability to do complex math problems. You've admitted that you've "done your share of math", and have an advanced degree in a math-heavy subject. The Common Core exercises aren't aimed at you, with your years of honed mathematical intuition. They're aimed at eight year olds, who are just figuring out the stuff for the first time. They're aimed at the majority of people, who haven't grown up in a household where mathematical literacy is a thing taken for granted.

Also, have you seen football players during practice where they do that whole running through tires thing? I don't understand it. I'm not all that athletic, but running over flat ground even I could outrace the football players running through those tires. It doesn't even make sense - they're never going to encounter tires during the game. If someone left tires on the field, the referees would halt the game and make someone pick them up. If you ask me, it's complete and utter rubbish. /s

Of course, the reason they do the run-through-tires thing is because they're training their agility and quickness. Actually running through tires is not going to happen during the game, but the techniques and skills they learn while doing it *will* help them out. -- Similarly with many of the Common Core exercises. They're not necessarily going to be the way you solve math problems in the future, but solving the problem in different ways (heck, even knowing you *can* solve the problem in different ways) will teach you things which will help build your number sense and train your Common Sense. (e.g. what does it mean for addition to be associative? Why is two tens the same as ten twos? What does it mean for subtraction to be the inverse of addition?)

Tom Lehrer's "New Math" gets quoted semi-regularly: "But in the new approach, as you know, the important thing is to understand what you're doing, rather than to get the right answer." This is played as a laugh line, but ... really? To me the joke is on everyone in the audience who laughed. If all you want is the right answer, use a fucking calculator. Isn't the whole damn point education actually understanding things? If we're satisfied with children just parroting back a correct answer, are we really teaching them, or are we simply manufacturing really shitty calculators? Getting the right answer is easy. Understanding why you're getting the right answer is the hard part.

Teaching students to "carry the one" is pointless. Don't just teach them to carry the one. Teach them what carrying the one means. Teach them *why* you should carry the one. And don't just tell them about it, grind it into their little skulls until it's so obvious they can't imagine people not popping out the womb with an understanding of it. - I don't claim that Common Core is perfect, but everything I've actually seen about it indicates that it's actually trying to do that, rather than create another generation of students who simply parrot back the multiplication table. From what I can tell, most of the pushback is either from people who wouldn't recognize the commutative property if it slapped them upside the head, or who somehow don't realize that it's aiming at understanding more than turning students into rote calculators.

Re:Simple Solution

[yodleboy]

"I happen to have a BS in Civil Engineering"

You do understand that your math skills are probably far greater than the majority of parents sending kids to public school right? Your kids are fortunate enough to have a parent that really gets math and can help them understand. Let's face it, not every kid is going to need to do complex math when they grow up. Common Core seems to be very good at teaching kids practical math that they can do mentally. Something the majority of adults I run into seem to have a lot of trouble with. I have two kids in elementary school, and both of them regularly impress with their math skills. I'm OK at math and my wife is actually good at it, so sometimes we cringe when we see their homework assignments, but the facts are, they are learning math, they can apply math even at this age, and they are not intimidated to try more difficult math later on. I always wonder how many kids with actual aptitude have been turned off at an early age because of math taught in traditional ways.

Re:Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Who blamed common core for American kids sucking at math? I think he only said it was inferior to the old way.

Re:Simple Solution

[crunchygranola]

Tom Lehrer's "New Math" gets quoted semi-regularly: "But in the new approach, as you know, the important thing is to understand what you're doing, rather than to get the right answer." This is played as a laugh line, but ... really? To me the joke is on everyone in the audience who laughed. If all you want is the right answer, use a fucking calculator.

Pedantic note: when "New Math" was written (pocket) calculators did not exist. They would come out about 5 years later, and become affordable a couple years after that.

Side note: the "New Math" worked very well for me. I liked learning the underlying principles. Another side note: it appears the methods being taught with Common Core are how I have always done mental math.

Re:Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for jumping to conclusions, but I happen to have a BS in Civil Engineering, so I've done my share of math. I also have 4 children currently ranging from HS to College level and all have experienced Common Core to varying degrees. I did my homework when Common Core was first being discussed and all the way through it being shoved down my childrens' and their teachers' throats, have you? It was approved by one individual to the outcry of every single other person on the review board. It's complete and utter rubbish. Anytime you'd like to sit down and solve a complex math problem using your Common Core vs my usage of Common Sense, please let me know. I'll even give you a 10 minute head start.

That still won't change the fact that Common Core isn't a method of teaching but knowledge requirements only. "Must know how to add two digits". It never says how to get there.

You're repeating the same Facebook Conservatives tripe about Common Core.

Re: Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easier to solve math problems by drawing a bunch of boxes and shit? And you do that in your head?

Common core is "math for retards".

Re:Simple Solution

[Rockoon]

However, this crappy way to teach math existed prior to "common core" and just happens to have the new sticker on it.

It doesnt have a new sticker on it. Whats new is the penalties for not doing it The Only Way Now Allowed.

Re:Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the GP meant researching Common Core as a parent concerned about their kids' education, not literally doing Common Core homework assignments*. Like in "I did my homework before choosing this car; it has a great safety rating and it's fun to drive."

* not to say that you can't also try out the homework assignments for yourself to get an idea what it's about, as an adult.

Re:Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Common core is geared towards those who would take the special education classes before schools stopped separating people out who needed that approach (due to whining parents) to learning math. It is a classic example of making things fair by catering to the lowest common denominator. Sure, everyone can learn via common core, but for normal people, or those who are gifted, there are far more efficient ways to learn.

The only parents I've run across who like the common core approach to math are the ones who were, in my generation (X), put in special ed classes for their learning disabilities. Some of these people are engineers - they had to go about learning in a different way but eventually got it. But we shouldn't fuck everyone else over for their special needs.

As an engineer, this all works out good for me. This generation if idiots coming up won't be able to replace me when I'm old and want to charge a huge rate to work a couple days of the week. Also, I'll be able to constantly say "trigger" words and not get fired.

Re:Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Learning math is only half the point of teaching it during development. It's not about getting the correct answer through convoluted set of rules, it's about developing critical thinking skills and Common Core math absolutely does not do that in any way shape or form.

Re:Simple Solution

[thrich81]

What I've observed (and I have a BA in Math and a MS in Electrical Engineering) is that Common Core attempts to teach the concepts of math and not necessarily the most efficient algorithms for calculating an answer. And I may be a bit uncharitable here, but the complaints I generally see about Common Core seem to be from people who are either not so good at math so they can't see doing arithmetic any way other than how they were taught, or people who are good enough at math but see it as a tool rather than a study in itself. Most engineers seem to fall into the later category. With my mathematician hat on, I personally fully endorse the Common Core math that I have seen, with the caveat that just maybe some of the concepts are too abstract, too soon, for some kids. I've seen several posts about Common Core which start out as, "I'm an engineer and Common Core math sucks...". There is always at least one in every discussion of Common Core. I've never seen a post which starts out as, "I'm a mathematician and Common Core math sucks..." Maybe it depends on what you are learning the math for and how far you intend to go with it.

Re: Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easier to solve math problems by drawing a bunch of boxes and shit? And you do that in your head?

Common core is "math for retards".

I don't know much about common core, but thinking about math that is actually used..

1) Learn how to solve basic equations symbolically (Mathcad variable->solve usually works.)
2) Learn how to effectively simplify those equations in ways that usually don't do bad things. I.E. in the range the equation is actually used, can we model it linearly or with or perhaps just use a table? Table's are great for real time calculations.
3) My favorite, learn how to iterate to a solution, because no one ever does calculus, or at least I haven't seen it. So much education just never gets used.
4) Learn general relationships with things so you can, at a glance ask whether a result is plausible. You don't need to be right every time, but having somewhere to start looking never hurts.
5) Learn at least one computer tool like mathcad, because your not going to do it all by hand ever again, hopefully. Spreadsheets work sometimes, but not as well, and there is of course actually programming or matlab. Labview actually works well for many things. Integrates C dll's well as well, and .NET for that matter.

Actually, teaching labview in schools would not be a horrible thing, since it integrates visualization so very well and debugging is second to none. Seriously, I want the custom probe equivalent in visual studio. (custom probe = apply whatever code you want to the data before displaying it.)

Re: Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a fuck about your 80-90% that can't do math anyway? Building a system to educate morons and leaving gifted students to teach themself is the exact opposite of what an educational system should be about. Common Core is shit. The desperate charge to educate the idiots is doomed to failure and always has been. None of this is new at all, but its always satisfying to see smug liberals admit that they are fine with NO ONE being educated, just as long as smart people don't get to use those unfair big brains of them. Fucking worthless.

Re:Simple Solution

[DivineKnight]

Not all change is good. That's why we have Ctrl+Z.

Re:Simple Solution

[thegarbz]

You do understand that your math skills are probably far greater than the majority of parents sending kids to public school right?

Is that an excuse for teaching the foundations of maths in a way that is most suitable for someone counting change at McDonalds?

We should be aiming to make engineers and geniuses and then demoting the people who don't understand it to common core, not teaching for the minimum and hoping for the best.

I always wonder how many kids with actual aptitude have been turned off at an early age because of math taught in traditional ways

I wouldn't wonder that. People with aptitude typically don't have a problem being given a complicated problem. That turns off the people without aptitude, which is good because let's face it, they're not going to be doctors or engineers anyway.

Re: Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

So instead of the literal of writing the 99+99 you jump to conclusions.

Re:Simple Solution

[Shortguy881]

You are a fool or just plain naive. The problem with common core is that it tries to teach a way of thinking and not the material at hand. For example, some people are just inherently good at numbers. They can add two 6 digit numbers in their head on the fly. Common core requires this person and the kid struggling in math to tackle the problem in the same way. It ignores the fact that people think differently.

Common core is equivalent to you filling out a document top to bottom at the DMV and bringing it to the counter. When you get to the counter you are sent back because you didn't fill the form out bottom to top. The answer is the same and it may make more sense to you to fill it out top to bottom, but that is no longer considered a correct answer.

Re:Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

The common core is just a set of standards. You can have a look at them http://www.corestandards.org/ for example http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/3/NBT/

What it appears you're are frustrated with, is that your school has chosen a curriculum that you don't think is effective. That's not a critique of the common core standards as they don't specify a curriculum or anything in terms of teaching style. They just say "here's what kids should know". I don't think you'll find anything about drawing circles in the common core.

Re:Simple Solution

[werepants]

Yes, I have looked at it. My wife taught with it for a few years and observed it working better for many of her students. And, a good friend of mine is a highly acclaimed math teacher (Bill Gates took her out to lunch a few years back to hear her ideas about math education) and she's a fan of common core. Just because something is different than the way you learned it doesn't mean it's worse. Any unfamiliar method will seem more complex at first.

Re:Simple Solution

[werepants]

How any curriculum is implemented is highly dependent on the district, school, and even the specific teacher. The piece of common core that's most controversial is their different system for arithmetic manipulations, but whether you choose to teach using only that method, or teach using multiple methods in parallel, is more a curriculum choice than something wrong with the system itself.

Also, the teachers I've talked to about it are generally in favor of Common Core. They see it working better with their students, and kids are picking things up faster.

Re:Simple Solution

[pnutjam]

Bad teachers and admins, not bad systems. However, there is nothing wrong with docking a student who doesn't follow directions. My child has demonstrated time and again he doesn't like peas, I still make him try them. Children need to learn to fail as well as learn to succeed.

Re:Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

And just what math does a doctor need to know that someone counting change at McDonalds doesn't? Your post is very arrogant.

Re:Simple Solution

[pnutjam]

I have more of a problem with the speed math that my children's school pushes. So many problems in 2 minutes... I think it works fine for alot of kids, but it just drives anxiety in my kids. I tell them to do the work, but don't worry about failing to make the time and I back them up when the teacher talks about it. Most of them don't like it either and I've never had a problem.

I suggest others try developing a working relationship with their childs teacher and communicating.
If the first time they hear from you is a rage out, you will get a different response then a parent who volunteers and then sends a politely worded inquiry suggesting a change in lesson plan or modification in the expectations for your child.

Re:Simple Solution

[werepants]

That's basically the same observation I've had - people who actually teach this stuff, or who understand the problems Common Core was created to address, are generally in favor of it. People who are very comfortable with the standard method see something that isn't instantly familiar and become suspicious. I tend to think building intuition about numbers will serve students far better than memorizing an efficient system for longhand arithmetic. Because honestly, nobody ever needs to do that anymore, so we ought to optimize education so that students master concepts, rather than optimizing for them to be human computers, as was more important 100 years ago.

Re:Simple Solution

[GLMDesigns]

My daughter is going through it now. Some of it is very good such as doing long division. It's so good that I've adopted it in the rare times that I need to do long division.

_ _ _
40 | 970 -- now we (as adults know that 40 goes into one thousand 25 times and the answer is one less (24) with 10 left over.

Let's look at it from a child's perspective who doesn't know what we know.

I had a good ascii representation but Slashdot's filter prevented it.

Re:Simple Solution

[werepants]

It ignores the fact that people think differently.

It's actually the opposite - Common Core provides multiple ways to think about and approach a problem, rather than forcing every student into a one-size-fits-all approach. It focuses on building intuition about numbers, helping kids understand how math relates to real objects and quantities in the world, rather than just trying to mold kids into human calculators. And I can tell you, that's something sorely missing - there are plenty of kids that come out of the traditional method able to do algebra manipulations all day long but if you give them a real-world problem that they've never seen before they don't have any idea where to begin. Teaching them merely to memorize and copy things on the board is a waste, functional and flexible knowledge is what matters.

Re:Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

But you probably aren't teaching your kid to eat peas through their nose; they'd still technically get the nutritional value.

Re:Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Dammit, my emacs window just disappeared!

Re:Simple Solution

[MightyYar]

We have different experiences in talking with teachers. No matter, the individual experiences of two people are not really data anyhow.

I completely agree that how curriculum is implemented is dependent on your locality. Here in PA, it is set by the individual districts with only the (ridiculously overblown) testing dictated by the state. I described how the new methods are generally being abused, but I cannot say that this abuse is universal. Our district uses the "enVision" math curriculum by Pearson, and it is guilty of too many methods taught too shallowly. Hmph, apparently "shallowly" is a word - seems awkward. Anyway, I'm not actually a harsh critic of Common Core - more a critic of the highly unscientific basis that education as a discipline is built upon in general. They swing wildly from one philosophy to another without a whole lot of significant evidence that one approach is better than another. Large districts in particular have no excuse not to be piloting programs and looking for significant results. What in the world is the PhD in education required to be an administrator for if all they are going to do is study philosophy?

Re:Simple Solution

[werepants]

I agree with you on that: Unscientific educational policy is the biggest problem with the whole system. And I mean the WHOLE system. I got my degree in Physics, but with an emphasis in education, so I took several courses. The majority of educational research is a complete joke. If you look into it you'll notice many grad programs for educational research have ridiculous requirements for publication, something like 10 papers published in order to receive a master's. That absurd quantity tells you something about the quality you can expect - these are opinion pieces where the closest thing to "data" you'll get is a classroom observation or perhaps an interview with a student. And the academic rigor for teacher education is nonexistent - it's busywork, all of it, where if you have a pulse and turn in papers on time you get an A.

I think Finland is on the right track. All teachers there must have a master's degree from an extremely rigorous program - 90% of candidates wash out. The mentality is that each classroom is a mini-laboratory for exploring and refining instructional methods, whereas American classrooms often do little more than try to contain students, or possibly dress up the same old teaching methods in some form of entertainment. Finnish students spend far fewer hours in school, yet have far better test scores.

The point isn't that we need to completely emulate their system, but that we should take lessons from it to address the various failures of our own educational system. Chief among them: having quality teachers that use systematic research to improve instruction is the key. This doesn't really fit into our political narrative, though, where in the U.S. the problem is either low pay (if you are a liberal) or unions (if you are a conservative). Both are ancillary issues at best, but until we can remove some of the polarization around the topic I'm afraid the most likely outcome is to keep rehashing the old conflict while our kids continue to get a haphazard education based on buzzwords and pseudoscience.

Re:Simple Solution

[pnutjam]

Not true, the peas would have to be mashed first, and probably thinned.

Re:Simple Solution

[Rockoon]

Bad teachers and admins, not bad systems.

Common Core, the Solution that attacks the Wrong Problem. Thanks.

Re:Simple Solution

[pnutjam]

Education is all about local control, it's a conservative dream. Common Core introduces some non-locally controlled standards for everyone to meet, but your on your own to fix the other stuff.

Plenty of localities do it right.

Re:Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Common Core was a good idea until it became a buzzword to check off on a list. Like any system, people will game it and claim to be doing it in action, but not in spirit.

Re:Simple Solution

[Bengie]

You need both ways. Some people are intuitively good at something and they think about things a different way. Don't try to change how they think, it's clearly working for them. At the same time, most people don't find everything to be intuitive, and they need to actually understand the problem, not just memorize stuff.

what the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Topic != writeup

Bet you this is the key to real AI

[gurps_npc]

As in, in order to get a real AI, it will need to have this fuzzy logic.

Which by the way will end up making our new Robotic overlords require human slaves to do math for them.

Which we will do incorrectly, causing their entire robotic empire to fall in a matter of hours.

Re: Bet you this is the key to real AI

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be surprised if AI requires separating rational and fuzzy logic. Our brains have seperate hemispheres.

Re:Bet you this is the key to real AI

[shawn2772]

As in, in order to get a real AI, it will need to have this fuzzy logic.

Which by the way will end up making our new Robotic overlords require human slaves to do math for them.

Which we will do incorrectly, causing their entire robotic empire to fall in a matter of hours.

I've thought this for a long time (well, not the humorous bits), that it's entirely possible that general intelligence fundamentally requires fuzziness and imprecision, and that by the time we succeed at creating really smart artificial intelligences, we'll find that they're just as error prone and fallible as people are. Which isn't to say we can't make them smarter than we are or that they won't be incredibly useful.

I also wonder if we will find we need to make systems that are deliberately crippled for many of the tasks we want them to do. I mean, imagine installing Marvin the Paranoid Android's brain in a car and requiring it to spend all of its time driving people around. It would likely soon drive off a bridge just to end the boredom. Yeah, Marvin is a fictional character, but it's believable to me that true artificial intelligences will get bored, distracted, make mistakes, etc., just like people, making them perhaps not much better than people at many of the moderately mindless tasks we'd like them to take on. So we'll have to limit them to make them good at what we want them to do... which may make them not so good at what we want them to do.

I think we may also have to deal with the equivalent of mental illness in AIs, and be unable to fully diagnose and/or fix the problems because the system is complex enough to be opaque to us, the same way we don't (and may never) fully understand our own brains and their malfunctions.

Intelligences general and flexible enough to do anything may do everything somewhat badly, and systems sufficiently specialized to do a task extremely well may be unable to cope with the unexpected. Or not. The next few decades are going to be very interesting.

Re:Bet you this is the key to real AI

[religionofpeas]

As in, in order to get a real AI, it will need to have this fuzzy logic.

I think the key is that sloppy arithmetic is much faster, while still being good enough.

Re:Bet you this is the key to real AI

[Aviation Pete]

Yeah, Marvin is a fictional character, but it's believable to me that true artificial intelligences will get bored, distracted, make mistakes, etc., just like people, making them perhaps not much better than people at many of the moderately mindless tasks we'd like them to take on. So we'll have to limit them to make them good at what we want them to do... which may make them not so good at what we want them to do.

You would need to implement emotions. Deep learning is still completely void of emotions, and that makes it better at what it does than humans.

Re:Bet you this is the key to real AI

[shawn2772]

Yeah, Marvin is a fictional character, but it's believable to me that true artificial intelligences will get bored, distracted, make mistakes, etc., just like people, making them perhaps not much better than people at many of the moderately mindless tasks we'd like them to take on. So we'll have to limit them to make them good at what we want them to do... which may make them not so good at what we want them to do.

You would need to implement emotions. Deep learning is still completely void of emotions, and that makes it better at what it does than humans.

Is boredom an emotion? I don't think so, and I could see a self-aware general-purpose AI deciding it just doesn't want to do what it's been asked to, because it's boring.

Re:Bet you this is the key to real AI

[Anonymous Coward]

Wanting to do something would probably require a reward system where the AI "feels" better when it does something, like a dopamine rush.

Poor Arithmatic

[NetGyver]

Finally, a chip that's close enough for government work!

Re:Poor Arithmatic

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Maybe the next, even more imprecise version will be able to do copyright math for the MPAA and RIAA.

Re:Poor Arithmatic

[BoberFett]

They're way ahead of you. Where do you think they get the figures they use for damages?

"Let's see... this person shared 12 songs with 37 people... OK that's $17,092,259 in damages."

Re: Poor Arithmatic

[Anonymous Coward]

The 3rd release will make all kinds of basic logical errors. Pirates could use it to generate their excuses for stealing movies.

Re:Poor Arithmatic

[Pseudonym]

The "holy grail" of imprecise arithmetic research is to automate Hollywood accounting. We're still a long way off from that.

Re: Poor Arithmatic

[Zontar The Mindless]

Did you mean to say, "The copyright cartels could use it for generating excuses for gutting the public domain"?

Uh Oh!

[Mikkeles]

I have a bad feeling about this.

Maybe its intended for political calculations!

Re:Uh Oh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Voting results

Re:Uh Oh!

[BlackPignouf]

and /. summaries!

Re:Uh Oh!

[aliquis]

and /. summaries!

Front-page algoritm:
Only ~20% chance this has been posted on Slashdot before so post it.

They found a huge cache of P5 and P54C chips?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good to see the FDIV bug is useful for something.

yep, the Pentium 585.7894323

[swschrad]

replaced a lot of them when I worked contract for an engineering outfit

Don't see how this should help

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I guess you can make arithmetics slightly faster when you allow errors, but is that where todays CPUs spend a lot of time? CPU caches, branch prediction, speculative execution... how big area of CPU is devoted to that, and how big area is for ALUs?

Re:Don't see how this should help

[CSMoran]

I agree -- for a single CPU. But perhaps for large numbers of independent cores you could gain a lot by neglecting locks and allowing certain race conditions to happen? Essentially "So what if it's off by one, if I can get the result much faster".

Re:Don't see how this should help

[pla]

Yes, I guess you can make arithmetics slightly faster when you allow errors, but is that where todays CPUs spend a lot of time?

Not so much in error checking, but in the choice of the algorithm itself.

As an example, Quake 3 famously used a crazy-fast inverse square root routine. It didn't give an exact answer, but rather, one "close enough" to suit its intended purpose (calculating surface normals for reflections) in software, in a quarter of the time FPUs of the era could get an answer using dedicated hardware. The FPU would always give a much more accurate answer, but not every use needs a much more accurate answer.

Re:Don't see how this should help

[Anonymous Coward]

"... I guess you can make arithmetics slightly faster when you allow errors..."

x = 7 and y = 20938475529913029.93872553783 should work.

Re:Don't see how this should help

[Galaga88]

If you're designing an adder and ignore some of the carries, you can make more of the process parallel.

If you're adding 387932874 and 387236154 for the purposes of determining the hue of a pixel that will be onscreen for 1/60 second, does it really matter if you forgot to carry a number down near 10^4?

Re:Don't see how this should help

[Tailhook]

but is that where todays CPUs spend a lot of time?

First, no one said anything about a "CPU." Second, ever heard of a GPU? Pretty much nothing but a huge collection of vector "arithmetics" [sic] processors and high performance RAM to feed them.

We're not all writing corporate web apps. There are many important applications that need to process huge quantities of noisy data such as signal processing, machine vision, lossy compression, real-time control and many others. Some of these do not need high precision, and if sacrificing precision means the battery lives N times longer or a few more milliseconds can be shaved from the loop cycle then that's the right answer.

Re:Don't see how this should help

[tlambert]

If you're adding 387932874 and 387236154 for the purposes of determining the hue of a pixel that will be onscreen for 1/60 second, does it really matter if you forgot to carry a number down near 10^4?

YES!

It damn well does!

Plus I need it at a bazillion frames a second, even though the refresh clock on my monitor is 120Hz, and it's impossible to display all but 120 of those frames!

Also, I want a pony!

Re:Don't see how this should help

[Anonymous Coward]

If less precision in our color math was acceptable, we could just use less bits of color depth.
Like, say 16-bit color (4 per channel) instead of 32-bit color (8 per channel).
In actuality, GPU tech has been moving steadily in the exact opposite direction from this for decades, and not without reason.

The fact of the matter is, extra precision is much cheaper to add than, say, more memory bandwidth. And it may not matter much for every pixel, but it matters for some and you have to play it safe unless you know in advance which pixels are important.

Re:Don't see how this should help

[retchdog]

We've known for a century that there are smarter and better ways to "play it safe" than to just use more bits; this common knowledge is finally being implemented in hardware. This is exciting enough (to me) to compensate for the rest of this increasingly crap-sack world.

Re: Don't see how this should help

[Anonymous Coward]

Reducing the colour depth causes banding. Introducing noise, in the form of slightly-inaccurate calculations, reduces banding. So a combination of both might actually be better (both faster and better looking) than either approach alone.

Been Done

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what they use in voting machines!

quantity not quality

[Anonymous Coward]

The S1 chip can process noisy data like video very efficiently because it doesn't need the extra circuits or operations needed to ensure every mathematical operation is performed perfectly.

Bring on the shitty video!

*cough* bullshit *cough*

[Anonymous Coward]

We can't afford to do another spin, just call it a feature.

This chip is supposedly great for video processing

[Zordok]

So this is just lossy compression implemented in hardware?

So...

[drewsup]

They invented a Pentium 4?? Wait...no they said it was power efficient...i'm confused now!

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Get your history right, the FDIV bug was in the original Pentium. Not Pentium 4.

Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

it's called Common Core!

This whole idea always seems weird to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, I understand that jpeg or h264 doesn't need 100% accuracy for the lossy steps,
But if you can afford more noise, isn't that a sign that your compression algorithm is shit and you could afford more compression?

Re:This whole idea always seems weird to me

[Rockoon]

But if you can afford more noise, isn't that a sign that your compression algorithm is shit and you could afford more compression?

Yes. I dont really have anything more to add.

Re:This whole idea always seems weird to me

[retchdog]

it depends. if processing speed is the bottleneck, you could easily be able to use an error-correcting code to compensate for (most of) the error caused by the hardware and still come out far ahead in "useful operations per second", as long as the processing gains from the imperfect hardware are sufficient. this project seems to be to determine that. the theory of computation on unreliable hardware is almost as old as the theory of computation itself; it just hasn't been necessary yet because the hardware was so primitive that we could make gains more easily just be shrinking die sizes and whatnot.

always keep in mind that "principles" in CS are rarely derived from actual physical principles; they're usually either heuristics, or derived from formal models based on abstract assumptions. either way, there will be opportunity for improvement. you are making an assumption connecting information density and processing speed. is it a valid one?

the question on everyone's mind:

[Gravis Zero]

Does it run Linus... cause you know, close enough.

This is how The Matrix started!

[Anonymous Coward]

the AIs need human brains to calculate the matrix. Paging Keanu Reeves number 7.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa there, too many multi-syllable words coherently formed into a sentence
describing a complex concept or idea - this is /., you know. Know your place.

CAP === 'robust'

*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not news. It has been done many times before. An obvious example is the Fast Inverse Square Root: Calculating normalized vectors is way more difficult then estimating them.

Shitty Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck this shitty article, I wanted to see actual details.

Ncie!

[Tablizer]

I'n tryimg onc uf thees ch1ps nnow. Is't rael1y co0l!

Re:This chip is supposedly great for video process

[Anonymous Coward]

Except by implementing it in hardware you can do a lot more doesn't-have-to-be-perfect calculations using less power. So, what -- this is a 16-bit or 8-bit cpu using modern hardware fabrication? Did someone just dupe DARPA into paying big money for a parallel 8-bit microcontroller implementation?

Not really new, most graphics cards have this

[Anonymous Coward]

This really isn't anything new. Before GPU programming was all the rage graphics cards often defaulted to imprecise math. You can even still choose to use the slower more precise math, or the faster math on newer cards.

I know how to save money

[Anonymous Coward]

Just get 200 kids from the US public school and give them math problems - this will ultimately be cheaper than making a computer to simulate it.

Re:I know how to save money

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure this would work very well.

Too often I have worked with 4th through 8th graders who, if they had no idea how to figure out an answer, would just make a random guess -- and not because the work was being graded or because it was a multiple choice test w/o penalty for wrong answers. Now if this chip was intended to generate true random numbers quickly, the kids might do a better job.

In addition, they seemed not to get the notion of estimating and "how close is close enough". I would try to get them to estimate the answer in order to check their computed answer, but they rarely got it.

To me, it's far more embarrassing to produce the wrong answer than to say "I don't know" -- apparently the opposite is true for an alarming percentage of the public schools that I've had experience with.

Computer Science Dept. of The Electoral College?

[IHTFISP]

I wonder how long before there is a crowd funded project to build an open source voting machine using this chip as its CPU?

Perhaps someone should ask whether the candidates would support that in the next presidential primary town hall.

I bet it could even be used to balance the budget, too!

Half-precision floating point already exists

[Anonymous Coward]

Half-precision floating point (~3.311 decimal digits) seems something similar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-precision_floating-point_format

and it's already implemented in some ARM chips
http://www.arm.com/products/processors/technologies/vector-floating-point.php

Re:Hmm

[plopez]

cheaper to make + cheaper to operate.

The fundamental challenge of AI

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you get an algorithm to make an irrational decision?

Isn't Visual Basic non-deterministic enough?

[dsmatthews9379]

Why spend all that money on research when Microsoft already had the perfect product for their needs.

Re:Isn't Visual Basic non-deterministic enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoah, you really got those VB nerds! Snap! Man, I would hate to be those guys right now...

Re:Isn't Visual Basic non-deterministic enough?

[dsmatthews9379]

OMG! They thought I was joking.

99.9% accurate for half the power?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just made up numbers in the subject, but why aren't our phones processing video streams with energy-lite, close-enough floating point math?

Re: 99.9% accurate for half the power?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just get a phone with a smaller screen/resolution -- there is no difference between crappy-math video on a high res display, or accurate math on a low res display.

They will both look like shit (relatively).

An irrational fear of change...

[tlambert]

I know whining about common core is a popular pastime among people who have an irrational fear of change,[...]

Actually, most of the Millennials who learned math via Common Core have an irrational fear of change.

For example, I tried to give this young woman at Panda Express 12 dollars and 12 cents, because the bill was 6 dollars and 87 cents, so that I could get a $5 bill and one quarter back from the transaction so I wouldn't have to carry around so many separate bills or extra coins, and she looked apoplectic.

I thought she was going to cry.

She simply could not cope with the change...

Because she could not do simple math in her head.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[cogeek]

You should have provided her a piece of paper and a pencil so she could draw out 1,212 little circles and then cross off 687 of them, then count up the remaining circles. Would be a system she's likely to be much more familiar with, unfortunately.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, I tried to give this young woman at Panda Express 12 dollars and 12 cents, because the bill was 6 dollars and 87 cents, so that I could get a $5 bill and one quarter back from the transaction so I wouldn't have to carry around so many separate bills or extra coins, and she looked apoplectic.

Ah, this is why we have Point-Of-Sale systems capable of calculating the change due for a cash transaction. I worked on a retail system for a large-box defunct hardware chain in the early 90s, and the 20 year-old cashiers then couldn't figure out change either, so it had nothing to do with common core.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[Dadoo]

For example, I tried to give this young woman at Panda Express 12 dollars and 12 cents, because the bill was 6 dollars and 87 cents, so that I could get a $5 bill and one quarter back from the transaction so I wouldn't have to carry around so many separate bills or extra coins, and she looked apoplectic.

Like it or not, some people are just stupid. I remember about 20 years ago, I went to a junkyard to get a couple of parts for my car. The guy looked flustered for a few seconds, as he tried to add up the cost, and then said he was trying to remember how to use a calculator. Automatically blaming that kind of stuff on Common Core is disingenuous, at best.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[lindseyp]

That's nothing. I should tell you about what happened that one time I tried to pay with a $2 dollar bill at Taco Bell...

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, I tried to give this young woman at Panda Express 12 dollars and 12 cents, because the bill was 6 dollars and 87 cents, so that I could get a $5 bill and one quarter back from the transaction so I wouldn't have to carry around so many separate bills or extra coins, and she looked apoplectic.

Ah, this is why we have Point-Of-Sale systems capable of calculating the change due for a cash transaction. I worked on a retail system for a large-box defunct hardware chain in the early 90s, and the 20 year-old cashiers then couldn't figure out change either, so it had nothing to do with common core.

It has been discussed before, but the penny as a unit of transaction is more trouble than it is worth. The metal costs more than the value of the penny, or did at least. Round all transactions to the nearest quarter, either with or without keeping an internal give or take 0-24 cents thing. That way, calculating change is faster and simpler, and people don't need to carry but one type of coin.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, I tried to give this young woman at Panda Express 12 dollars and 12 cents, because the bill was 6 dollars and 87 cents, so that I could get a $5 bill and one quarter back from the transaction so I wouldn't have to carry around so many separate bills or extra coins, and she looked apoplectic.

That's funny, because the fast food restaurants I've visited tend to have this thing called a "cash register" where the employee keys in the *exact* amount that customer wants to pay with. She wouldn't have had to do any math whatsoever if you had handed her the amount you claim you did.

What probably happened was that you handed her a ten, she posted the transaction, and like a true jackass you said, "Oh wait I got change," and started counting out the remaining $2.12 in nickels, dimes, pennies, and atm receipts. She saw the line forming behind you, rolled her eyes, and your brain registered that as "bitches can't do math."

But yeah, I feel you: some people have a hard time with change.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[Darinbob]

Yup, kids can't do math today. And that's up into the twenties. Granted, the most brilliant kids aren't taking those jobs, and certainly anyone with any degree of affluence isn't taking any job anymore (I guess it no longer builds character). But when they can't even make change then you gotta blame their education.
However that faulty education was done BEFORE common core.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[Darinbob]

That's not common core though, that's a stereotype.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[stdarg]

That's a good point, but it shows the futility of common core. We're not going to make every kid (or even most) a math star. And why should we?

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[radarskiy]

"so I wouldn't have to carry around so many separate bills or extra coins"

Sounds like you couldn't cope with change, either.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was standing in line at McDonalds and all their order entry panels stopped working. The cash registers still worked so they were saved from adding up the cost and taxes. The teenagers taking orders announced they couldn't serve anyone because they had no way to take orders. A 50ish employee working in the back came up front with pencils and paper and told them to start taking orders again. They all looked at him like he was asking them to translate Egyptian hieroglyphs but they did start taking orders again.
The parents are ultimately responsible for their childrens education. However, children who choose not to apply themselves or listen to their parents end up not being educated. The curriculam comes in 3rd place. Too many kids today think that texting and using Facebook are actual technical skills

Re: An irrational fear of change...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that is fucking common core -- I have a child in elementary school right now going through this "common core" ridiculous math/art/drawing bullshit.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[Anonymous Coward]

Should've told him it's the new Obama bill... Pretty sure it's worked somewhere before.

--sf

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shop clerks have always had trouble with that kind of thing. You could've had the same experience anytime - well, basically anytime since the invention of the quarter.

Generally the more experienced ones have learned to cope. But anytime you get someone in their first day or two on the job - which, by the nature of the job, is pretty often - they'll break down.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the 1960's, the cashiers won't be allowed to handle arithmetic. They would add on the prices, calculate the total, write it dow, take the customers money, put it in a small basket on a string, and that would be pulled up to the floor above where the accountants were sitting. They would calculate the change and send it back down.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously don't do what GP was talking about often.

I've had people give me back the change (or the extra $1 bill). "It was only $11, I don't need $21"

If I'm feeling polite, I'll just go along with it and live with a bunch of small bills. If not, I'll tell them to just type it in to the register and "it'll all work out".

(Bonus points: I've had someone give me 5x $1 bills back before, even though I saw they had $5s.)

It's a crazy world out there.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[danbert8]

I wouldn't round all transactions, just ones paid in cash. Round all cash transactions UP to the nearest quarter to discourage people from using cash. Use the remainder to pay down the national debt.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[Jason Levine]

That's exactly the method my son was taught for subtraction. For division, they draw lines, circle groups of the lines, and then count the groups. Much of Common Core math is removing the whole "working with numbers" out of math. I'm not sure if the creators (who weren't educators, by the way) thought "numbers are too hard for kids to understand so let's go with lines and boxes", but that's the end result.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the dumb ass parents will want you too. Dumb fuckin people actually think that the way to make their child smart is to send them to a good school and that's it. Nothing else to it. They know that smart parents want to send their children to good school, and they children of smart parents go on to become smart and successful.... They think it's that simple. There is no sensible way to deal with dumb people. You cannot explain to them that the good school confers maybe a 10% the benefit you get by not having dumb parents, and 1% the benefit of not being a dumb fuckin kid yourself.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[Anonymous Coward]

We are we discouraging people from using cash?

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[dave420]

One person does not a generation make. You seem to assume that she was having the perfect day, with nothing clouding her abilities. Your desire to overlook common courtesies when witnessing someone having difficulty and leaping to the conclusion of "they're fucked in the head" speaks more of you than the hapless person in your story. I've seen people of all ages choke when making change at some point, but unlike you I don't tar everyone with some convenient, snuggly brush. If that was the case I'd tar your entire generation as feckless muppets based on your wonderfully-illuminating condemnation of an entire generation based on one person.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, I've seen where the registers actually tell the exact counts of the actual coins that should be returned. (Give them 0 ones, 2 quarters, 1 dime... etc.)

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[werepants]

Actually, most of the Millennials who learned math via Common Core have an irrational fear of change.

Anybody old enough to work at Panda Express probably wasn't educated via Common Core. It has only really taken off in the last few years (at least in my area) so current teenagers probably learned the standard method. So that's really an indictment of math prior to Common Core, and sounds like exactly the kind of outcome it's trying to address: students who can endlessly work long division problems out on paper but have no real intuition for numbers or ability to apply their knowledge outside of the classroom.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[pnutjam]

sure, because that's a new problem. I've seen this for decades. Most people can't do math in their head, and most cashiers today didn't learn common core, which, as established above, started around 2009. I would posit that common core might make it easier for people to do simple math in their head.

Save the complex paper techniques for people who really need to do hard math.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[pnutjam]

Why don't you come up with a better way to visualize the mental process this is illustrating?

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[pnutjam]

As illustrated by this thread, abundantly, dumb people don't know their own limitations. There have been plenty of studies that show how real the Dunning-Kruger effect is.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[tlambert]

sure, because that's a new problem. I've seen this for decades. Most people can't do math in their head, and most cashiers today didn't learn common core, which, as established above, started around 2009. I would posit that common core might make it easier for people to do simple math in their head.

Save the complex paper techniques for people who really need to do hard math.

You realize that for an 18 year old cashier, that would mean 6.5 years ago at the shortest, which would have made her 11.5 years old at the time, which would have put her in 6th grade at the time "it really caught on", according to you, right?

So yes, she was taught "Common Core" methods.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[Darinbob]

Thats a method used to help someone understand what subtraction is, it's something you do in lower grades. It's not a method taught about how to actually do this in real life.

In the 60s this is how we did it, drew circles on the board, drew diagonals in them to represent fractions. For subtraction it was "if you have 20 pennies and I take away 7, how many do you have?" And so forth. Teach the concepts, then teach how to make use of it.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[tlambert]

One person does not a generation make.

It was an anecdote about an incident that was not isolated. It's rather common.

You seem to assume that she was having the perfect day, with nothing clouding her abilities.

OK, I'll cop to that. You're right: she could have been high on weed, or something similar, making her unable to do simple math.

Your desire to overlook common courtesies when witnessing someone having difficulty and leaping to the conclusion of "they're fucked in the head" speaks more of you than the hapless person in your story.

And now, you are projecting your own bias. I in fact did tell her what the change would be, after she looked upset, and told her to "just type the amount into the cash register".

But you are right to call her "hapless"; she was definitely "unfortunate, unlucky, luckless, out of luck, ill-starred, ill-fated, jinxed, cursed, doomed" by having had to learn via Common Core methods.

And yes, if you can not do simple math, you *are* "fucked in the head". The only question is "who did the fucking?". Genetics is one option, drug use is another, but in this context, we were clearly discussing "improper teaching methodology".

If that was the case I'd tar your entire generation as feckless muppets based on your wonderfully-illuminating condemnation of an entire generation based on one person.

You mean like "werepants" did, in the post to which I was replying, since the only way to describe the word "change" in the context of werepants' post is as a delta from a past status quo, thus implying a generational difficulty with new ways of teaching being based on generational bias, rather than rational argument.

Which is, of course, why I chose a different definition of the word for my interpretation, and reflected werepants' generation bias back at them, and provided an example where that bias was, in fact, justified.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[Jason Levine]

I wouldn't have a problem if this was a method they used for a week or two to teach the concept and then moved onto real numbers, but this is THE method that they are using for solving actual math problems - long after the kids are comfortable with the concept of subtraction (or addition, multiplication, or division). If kids use the traditional method, they are marked as wrong even if they show their work and get the right answer.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[tlambert]

Why don't you come up with a better way to visualize the mental process this is illustrating?

Hunh.

I was not aware that all kids were visual learners, as your statement seems to assume, since you want them to visualize the result.

However, men tend to have brain structures that are, on average, more visually oriented than the brain structures in women.

Perhaps this method of teaching, to only visual learnes, explains the dearth of women in STEM...

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[pnutjam]

Visual, might not be the right words. Since this is new, I don't see how it could be the driving factor behind lack of women in STEM.

When I say visual, I mean a way the teacher can demonstrate without trying to verbally explain a thought process.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[pnutjam]

I clearly said it started in 2009. I know it didn't catch on before then. I have an almost 15 year old who has had no exposure to common core. I remember noticing the different way my younger kids were doing math problems.
To be honost, I didn't always agree with the way my older daughter was taught math. I had to show her alternative methods and assure her that I would back her up with the teacher if she used the method that worked best for her. That's pretty much what the Common Core (for math) does today.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice SJW work there. You identified the problem correctly and righteously - it's not about the change or math, it is that it involves a woman. Then rewrote the entire account (which you have not witnessed in person, but who the hell cares about those details) in a new way to outline the real problem, OP as the misogynist asshole that in your mind he deserves to be for portraying a woman in a negative fashion, a terrible thing to do and never substantiated.

That asshole woman-hater bastard.

Re:An irrational fear of change...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is a proven fact that in the UK cashiers cannot do even simple math. I blame their horrible design for coins, and the laborist education system.

Re:This chip is supposedly great for video process

[aliquis]

So this is just lossy compression implemented in hardware?

I've got some lousy hardware - want to make a video?

Man fuck you people

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you do that to computers, the real world is a bunch of incompetent fuckheads who need a model to live their life by because they can't figure it out on their own. Why would you want to emulate that?

Reminds me of "The Warm Space" by David Brin

[Anonymous Coward]

The inner thoughts of one AI robot-citizen, with a brain based on cold superconductors... (Emphasis added):

The director felt warm. He knew that it was partly subjective-resentment of this invasion of his domain by a ridiculous sentimentalist. Most of all, the director resented the feelings he felt boiling within himself.

Why, why do we modern forms have to be cursed with this burden of emotionalism and uncertainty! I hate it!

Of course he knew the reasons. Back in ancient times, fictional "robots" had been depicted as caricatures of jerky motion and rigid, formal thinking. The writers of those precryo days had not realized that complexity commanded flexibility even fallibility. The laws of physics were adamant on this. Uncertainty accompanied subtlety. An advanced mind had to have the ability to question itself, or creativity was lost.

The director loathed the fact, but he understood it.

Still, he suspected that the biologists had played a trick on his kind, long ago. He and other Utilitarians had an idea that there had been some deep programming, below anything nowadays accessed, to make mechano-people as much like the old style as possible.

If I ever had proof it was true he thought, gloweringly, threateningly.

Ah, but it doesn't matter. The biologicals will be extinct in a few generations, anyway. They're dying of a sense of their own uselessness.

-- "The Warm Space" (1985)

Great, they just invented Stoner Computing

[kheldan]

So, how much of my taxpayer dollars were spent creating a computer that works about as well and reliably as a stoner highschool dropout? Shall we call it the Spicoli Chip? If you criticize it's answers, does it just take a solid hit off it's digital doobie and say to you "..that's just, like, your opinion, man"? Should we refer to this as 'Millennial processing'?

Re:Great, they just invented Stoner Computing

[hey!]

Actually, this reminds me a lot of the way the human brain works, particularly in the area of visual perception, where it processes exceedingly messy data to come up with useful, timely, but not particularly reliable results.

Re:Great, they just invented Stoner Computing

[serviscope_minor]

If you criticize it's answers, does it just take a solid hit off it's digital doobie and say to you "..that's just, like, your opinion, man"? Should we refer to this as 'Millennial processing'?

I'm pretty sure "that's just, like, your opinion, man" would "boomer processing" not "milennial processing". I know millenials get blamed for a lot of stuff, but they didn't invent hippies getting stoned.

Re:Great, they just invented Stoner Computing

[kheldan]

If you want to be factually accurate then sure, but if you're going for humor, then more current-events-oriented works better. Or are you criticizing me for being less than accurate? Please, you'll make DARPA cry! XDDD

The server version: Silverlake...

[Applehu Akbar]

This processor will have eight common cores and be capable of simulating such real-world situations as a table of foodies fighting over how to divide a restaurant check.

Finally!

[Locke2005]

A machine that can be replaced by ME!

Remember:

[Locke2005]

At Intel, quality is job number 0.99998643!

Bad at Maths

[Anonymous Coward]

So this chip emulates me...

Just What We Need - Insane Robot Overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

As if robot overlords weren't bad enough.

Finally the birth of analogue computing

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally the birth of analogue computing, which I imagine would work in a way similar to the brain where repeatable activity can return varying results, I cant wait until they bring out analogue graphics cards which will be extremely fast and any small calculation errors would be indiscernible to the human eye.

Think about those 1-bit DACs

[John Allsup]

Many CD players, for example, use 1-bit DACs. These turn the PCM signal into a stream of bits where the average density corresponds to the signal. I would imagine you could construct circuits to process things like images of video where the average 'pressure or density' of bits output would be the meaningful output.

Re:Think about those 1-bit DACs

[Rockoon]

I for one cant wait for 3-bit RGB and the 3072000 FPS needed to make it work as well as 24-bit RGB.

(a 1-bit DAC suitable for 48khz audio operates at 3.072mhz)

Re:Think about those 1-bit DACs

[retchdog]

why have a fixed clock cycle for display in the first place? maybe you could exploit the physical characteristics of the display to cover up whatever fluctuations there might be in the video stream.

Paging Hofstadter...

[Etcetera]

As in, in order to get a real AI, it will need to have this fuzzy logic.

Which by the way will end up making our new Robotic overlords require human slaves to do math for them.

Which we will do incorrectly, causing their entire robotic empire to fall in a matter of hours.

Well, I'm pretty sure it was Hofstadter. One of the discussions on AI and computers I read a long time ago posited (quoting someone else) that an AI would quite possibly not be very good at math. Or rather, would only be about as good at basic math as a human with a calculator would be (ie, good, but not perfect, due to residual/external issues).

Intelligence operates at a different level.

Why not just use less precise numbers?

[Anonymous Coward]

using 16 bit floating point numbers instead of 32 bit on GPUs usually has a speed improvement. a 16 bit FPU takes much less space than a 32 bit one, consumes less power, and you are transferring less data to and from memory by using half precision floats.

Same thing can be done with integers, although many encoders and decoders are already crazy hand assembly optimized and take advantage of this.

Re:Why not just use less precise numbers?

[retchdog]

because you could get better performance by having a 32-bit processor which occasionally makes errors but is usually precise to at least 30 bits, than you can by going with 16 bits in the first place? it's faster and more accurate on average; as long as the software can efficiently compensate for the occasional error, it's stupid to use "imperfection by obsolescence" instead of "imperfection by design".

Waste of money I say

[Anonymous Coward]

Why design a special purpose chip to do what can and has been done so reliably and consistently all these years!

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

What is a non-deterministic algorithm? The only way I am able to parse that into something meaningful requires specialized hardware that sacrifices the "guarantee" of correctness for speed. Which I vaguely recall seeing an article about somewhere.

Re: This chip is supposedly great for video proces

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like it to me. If you want faster (and less accurate) answers, just use integers (don't need no stinking decimals), and use 8 or 16-bit processors for that retro less-precision flare.

I hope the programmers working on this have heard of cumulative/exponential rounding errors. Garbage in, garbage out.

A government-made bad math chip?

[RogueWarrior65]

For what? So Washington can come up with flawed budget proposals faster so they don't have to sit around Washington as much as they did when they had to come up with flawed budget proposals by hand?

Eh, close enough...

[Zcar]

...for government work.

most digital math is inherently imperfect

[Aviation Pete]

When using floating point math you always have an imprecise representation of the actual number. You might be lucky that the finite number of bits will be able to represent the intended number exactly, but when you start with analog values and convert them to digital, you always add noise.

This "new" technology sound as if they move from double precision back to single precision. Of course it needs less circuitry and power.

Re:most digital math is inherently imperfect

[serviscope_minor]

but when you start with analog values and convert them to digital, you always add noise.

Yesbut.

I mean yes you do. However, each stage of analog processing adds noise too, and you can often make the quantization noise sit well below the analog noise floor.

Old! I do that all the time!

[Anonymous Coward]

Without special hardware, but in software simulation. It's all just almost correct. I want grant money for that, too.

Any word on the instruction set?

[rnturn]

Will it have "BRME" (BRanch if Maybe Equal), "MOVMO" (MOVe Most Of), "ADDFS" (ADD Forgetting Sign), or other interesting instructions?

Personally, I've always wished there was an "if almost equal" statement available instead if having to code "if ( abs(actual - desired) eh_close_enough )" but to have the hardware do something like for me? Sweet!

1+1==?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, now 1+1 == 2, more or less?

fuzzy logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this kinda the point of fuzzy logic? Are we finally building fuzzy processors?

...it's not stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

It's advanced!

'close enough'

[Anonymous Coward]

Well!
This bodes well for imprecise, but close enough, encryption and decryption....
The algorithm is loosly based on precise mathematics, but uses imprecise operations, and suddenly becomes
a real nightmare to try to break.... LOL!

if yuo kaN raed tihs yuo r spuer-smert!

Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Just use a Pentium 75 CPU from the 90's, they couldn't add correctly either. har har.

Tailor-made for climate simulation

[IHTFISP]

Q. Put a dozen of them in a room and use consensus rules to run massive weather models and what do you get?

A. Boom! Global warming!!

So what if each of the individual results is mostly wrong? Majority rules! This is now settled science. Move on, dolt commie: this is the just democratization of truth. Etc. *smirk*

Re:Tailor-made for climate simulation

[Anonymous Coward]

Even better is the way the used to achieve consensus. Simply fire every one that disagreed with the official truth.

maybe condition

[peawormsworth]

There should be a 'maybe' programming condition. Like if(), else(), unless(). Except the block would only be executed if true most of the time and also sometimes when it is false. For example:

maybe (x > 1) then { print "I think x is greater than 1" }