Let me rephrase my comment as such: A priest is somebody that does items 1-7 on your list. It's not required that the priest holds any beliefs himself.
You won't get AI by messing with some genetic algorithm for a day, trying to do something completely different. The search space is just too big to stumble upon AI accidentally.
AI is able to teach itself and learn higher order concepts, metaphors, and thought patterns, its potential will have outclassed human potential and the function is effectively a singularity
The real requirement is to translate source code that maps to a bunch of x86 instructions into ONE [trendy ISA] instruction.
No, the real requirement is to execute the program as quickly as possible. If that can be done by mapping N->1, that's great, and I'm sure Intel already does that where they can. But if you can get the same speed by using multiple instructions in parallel, that works too.
X86 was a poor ISA when the first 8086 chips were made (but good, given hardware capabilities at the time). That was about 40 years ago. MIPS and Sparc (and ARM) are all better than x86.
No, the x86 is a good ISA. You may not think it's pretty, but it gets the job done, as their market shares proves. It's also enlightening to look at the ARM ISA. From the original ARM1 to the latest ARM Cortex, there's been a clear trend to make the ISA more complex, and less orthogonal. ARM has reduced the number of easily accessible registers, has introduced division and unaligned access, and is doing variable length instructions.
On the other hand, silicon is orders of magnitude faster, so you could use less hardware resources and do many things in sequence, rather than in parallel.
An autonomous car needs a lot more longer term planning than a cockroach does. For a cockroach it's acceptable to run into a wall, or into another cockroach. For a car going 80 mph, not so much.
The major stumbling block isn't processor speed or capacity. It's that we don't know how to architect such a system in the first place.
We have some ideas on how to architect such a system, but we can't try them out because of lack of good hardware. We already had ideas in the 80's to build neuronal nets, but the ideas failed because they weren't big enough. Now people have a lot more success with deep learning, mostly because they've been throwing a lot more hardware at it.
A car with the smarts of a mouse would do great as an autonomous vehicle
Well, we can't make an artificial mouse brain either, so that only enforces my point that there's still a lot to do.
Depends on how you measure processing power of course...
I was hoping this was obvious from my comment. I'm talking about the silicon chips doing the things that our brain can do, such as designing the next intel chip.
According to Wikipedia, the natural occurrence of indium is 3 times that of silver, but current world production of indium is 40 times lower, so it is reasonable to assume that indium production can be scaled up if there's increasing demand.
Table salt contains chloride, not chlorine. Chlorine is dangerous because it has a very high electron affinity. It will happily steal electrons from your lung tissue if you inhale it. Chloride is basically chlorine that already has stolen an electron, so it's quite harmless.
Slashdot Mirror
Religion is simply a method to wield power over the weak minded. Actually believing the stuff yourself only gets in the way.
If I'm encrypting my data with my own keys, how exactly, other than brute force, is the NSA going to get access to the data?
There may be a backdoor or vulnerability in the software you use. You may have a keylogger on your computer that allows them to grab your password.
Why would humans agree to let an AI strip mine the earth ? And where does the motivation for endless growth come from ?
Let me rephrase my comment as such: A priest is somebody that does items 1-7 on your list. It's not required that the priest holds any beliefs himself.
I'm still trying to decipher your message. It's a tough one.
And what will it do when it runs out of VMs ?
You won't get AI by messing with some genetic algorithm for a day, trying to do something completely different. The search space is just too big to stumble upon AI accidentally.
A priest is somebody that tells other people to believe. It's not required that the priest holds these beliefs himself.
Teach people in an unstable region how they can hack computers in the West.
AI is able to teach itself and learn higher order concepts, metaphors, and thought patterns, its potential will have outclassed human potential and the function is effectively a singularity
It will still be limited by its hardware.
Also, the newer architectures require more logic, so they only become feasible after an improvement in process technology.
It's not even clear that a new ISA would actually improve performance by a meaningful amount.
The real requirement is to translate source code that maps to a bunch of x86 instructions into ONE [trendy ISA] instruction.
No, the real requirement is to execute the program as quickly as possible. If that can be done by mapping N->1, that's great, and I'm sure Intel already does that where they can. But if you can get the same speed by using multiple instructions in parallel, that works too.
X86 was a poor ISA when the first 8086 chips were made (but good, given hardware capabilities at the time). That was about 40 years ago. MIPS and Sparc (and ARM) are all better than x86.
No, the x86 is a good ISA. You may not think it's pretty, but it gets the job done, as their market shares proves. It's also enlightening to look at the ARM ISA. From the original ARM1 to the latest ARM Cortex, there's been a clear trend to make the ISA more complex, and less orthogonal. ARM has reduced the number of easily accessible registers, has introduced division and unaligned access, and is doing variable length instructions.
On the other hand, silicon is orders of magnitude faster, so you could use less hardware resources and do many things in sequence, rather than in parallel.
You've got a very dry sense of humor.
It's mummified.
Computers can help with the low-level design, yes. They can't come up with novel ideas to change the overall design.
Fragmenting bullets are also not as effective against body armor.
An autonomous car needs a lot more longer term planning than a cockroach does. For a cockroach it's acceptable to run into a wall, or into another cockroach. For a car going 80 mph, not so much.
The problem with some optimizations is that they do not work with the x86 instruction set.
I don't see why the x86 instruction set is a problem. Just translate them on the fly, as they've been doing for years.
The major stumbling block isn't processor speed or capacity. It's that we don't know how to architect such a system in the first place.
We have some ideas on how to architect such a system, but we can't try them out because of lack of good hardware. We already had ideas in the 80's to build neuronal nets, but the ideas failed because they weren't big enough. Now people have a lot more success with deep learning, mostly because they've been throwing a lot more hardware at it.
A car with the smarts of a mouse would do great as an autonomous vehicle
Well, we can't make an artificial mouse brain either, so that only enforces my point that there's still a lot to do.
Depends on how you measure processing power of course...
I was hoping this was obvious from my comment. I'm talking about the silicon chips doing the things that our brain can do, such as designing the next intel chip.
According to Wikipedia, the natural occurrence of indium is 3 times that of silver, but current world production of indium is 40 times lower, so it is reasonable to assume that indium production can be scaled up if there's increasing demand.
Going to 5nm only helps if it is a functional product that is better than what we have.
We still don't have the processing power of a human brain in a few pounds of silicon, running on 20 Watts. There's still a lot to do.
They've always done a lot of hardware optimization techniques. But advanced hardware techniques go hand in hand with extra transistors.
Table salt contains chloride, not chlorine. Chlorine is dangerous because it has a very high electron affinity. It will happily steal electrons from your lung tissue if you inhale it. Chloride is basically chlorine that already has stolen an electron, so it's quite harmless.