Ai Dreams Forum
Member's Experiments & Projects => General Project Discussion => Topic started by: LOCKSUIT on November 25, 2019, 01:43:35 am
-
Really!?
Maybe. I'm researching it a bit. I have 2 good ideas.
I read this:
https://b1391bd6-da3d-477d-8c01-38cdf774495a.filesusr.com/ugd/56440f_2e6113c60ec34ed0bc2035c9d1313066.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1yY-JSOSL1uRw6td5-Qyfsp-lpQhFTGdXcy1TUQlgpbzDQ2c499lVE4_8
Let me know if I'm correct, or where wrong, The RAM sends its bits to the CPU and the assembly codes recognized are making the ALU do if-then math, like adding/moving +/- numbers, and doing yes/no rules? It also stores and recalls values. And has counters for Reset, Next, GoTo address. There's synchronization, clocking, and feedback loops. Where does the million transistors for a CPU come in?? Seems very parallel like a GPU to me.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine
-
Below is what the 'dilution refrigerator' [cooling unit] looks like for a universal quantum computer, in appearance and schematic.
(https://miro.medium.com/max/1470/1*8wYN6tesXyhT7aa_-qYeVw.jpeg)
(https://artsci.wustl.edu/sites/artsci.wustl.edu/files/Ampersand/DilutionFridge.png)
Of course you could always go for an adiabatic quantum computer and get it down to this size, for a few million bucks...
(https://www.dwavesys.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/D-Wave_LarryGoldstein_287_EXPORT.jpg?itok=nowzi_7i)
Let us know when you come back down to earth.
-
I'm looking at using the Turing Machine as my base:
https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/projects/raspberrypi/tutorials/turing-machine/one.html
-
Ok I understand the Turing Machine FINALLY. If this is all that is needed, and a CPU is sequential, then why does a modern processor run any faster if it MUST do these elementary Turing functions? CPU is actually parallel!!??
And again, why do we need this AND/OR/NOR gate setup? Is this just making the common functions available instead of turing em each every time?
https://b1391bd6-da3d-477d-8c01-38cdf774495a.filesusr.com/ugd/44046b_f2c9e41f0b204a34ab78be0ae4953128.pdf
It seems like a computer has a data, program, hardware ALU with control/decoder unit (just makes common tasks fast?). The buses are data, control, and address. Every input program has an output result is key here.
-
Ok I understand the Turing Machine FINALLY. If this is all that is needed, and a CPU is sequential, then why does a modern processor faster if it must do these Turing functions I'll call them? It's actually parell?
Now you're starting to understand not only Turing machines, but you're also starting to understand why I emphasize the word 'efficiently' in my definition of intelligence. If all else is the same, faster is better. Modern digital computers use a huge number of tricks for extra speed--registers to hold common values, cache memory, parallel processors, firmware, vector processors, pipelining, and so on.
That said, Turing machines are not a practical model for computing. As an engineer and a Mathematica user, they shouldn't concern you at all. Even in the theoretical computer science community, the more realistic RAM machines are used in the areas of algorithms and data structures.
https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/9341/practical-importance-of-turing-machines
-
No but seriously, I thought a CPU meant it goes through each bit (or byte at least) of the stored program, one at a time. To be so faster than a Turing tape it appears to me a CPU looks at 800 bytes in parallel???
-
Or I forgot, a program file can loop, and over the data as well......but still....if the CPU looks at more than 1 bit/byte at a time that is cheating, its not sequentially by any means I think....
-
For example, why does a CPU have billions of transistors????? Really? Think about it now. That's very parallel no?
-
No but seriously, I thought a CPU meant it goes through each bit (or byte at least) of the stored program, one at a time. To be so faster than a Turing tape it appears to me a CPU looks at 800 bytes in parallel???
I'll go by memory now, since my Internet connection is acting up. A program is stored in a certain region of RAM, and each instruction of the program is loaded one at a time. The hardware knows from the instruction code how many arguments the instruction will hold, and where they are stored, so there are typically lines that operate in parallel to pull those arguments out of the bit representation of that instruction. Those arguments are then sent to the proper part of the ALU of the CPU, if applicable, for the math to be done. For example the instruction 'ADD 2 3' will always have two arguments, a fact that the computer knows by the binary equivalent of the ADD instruction in machine code, those argument values [in this case, 2 and 3] are then sent to say registers A and B, then those values are added by the hardware when the proper clock cycle comes around--when it's 'their turn'.
http://www.science.smith.edu/dftwiki/images/thumb/e/e8/SCS_Load7_binary.png/300px-SCS_Load7_binary.png
-
45 year old 8008 processor die... really simple by today's standards...
http://www.righto.com/2016/12/die-photos-and-analysis-of_24.html
You can drag, rotate and zoom on the processor simulation whilst it running.. cool.
http://visual6502.org/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNN_tTXABUA
:)
-
Someone had to make that! SOMEONE HAD TO, to.. to... AUGHHHHHHH... Just the thought of it :dead: :dead: :dead: now I get why they called it a die.
-
Ok I look extra dumb don't I, but watch me find some easy peasy way to do it, just u wait. I have 3 wicked plans and a imaginary Turing tape.
I love it when I find out there was a very very VERY easy way to do something. These short cuts exist. You gotta look. I'm a hardcore extremist cyborg!! ;x
-
Good luck locky with the quantum computer, if u or I ever get it working maybe we can share info with each other, ill give you 5 years to do it since u only little young woodpekker. :)
Yeh cpus do one instruction at a time, so get the clock speed * it by the bus, and then you divide it by how many and masks and bitshifts it takes to get through the program, and only then do you get the frame rate.
if the entire logic of the program is in hard one shot, then you get the clockspeed without the extra cost divide, and that would be a lot faster.
Even gpu's have to only run one instruction a time, per core, effectively, so even they suffer the same divide on the fps.
However... if you have kickass ultimo power hz the full hard logic at the clockspeed, the frame rate is the clockspeed, if that were say one raystep in a raytracer, youd get a billion bounces over the whole screen. (so 512x512 res x 1024 parallel cone rays per bounce x 4 bounces- for extreme hardware raytracing.)
If u ever got that to work, try not to go crazy - anyone can go get souped hardware, it could be anyone, so its not that exciting, but its doing a good job.
-
but watch me find some easy peasy way to do it, just u wait.
Of course biological brains came up with an easy peasy hardware solution to solve the practical problems of everyday life. Brains used only one basic component, the neuron, allowed many of them to fire at one time [no more awaiting your turn for the appropriate clock cycle], and there was enough parallelism so that neurons killed by alcoholism [evidently a natural affliction of all intelligent beings] could be bypassed, and voilà , the system worked pretty well. Of course there were a few details to be worked out, like figuring out which neurons needed to be modified, the eventual result of which was 10^4 different types of neurons grouped into 3-4 categories...
https://www.reference.com/science/three-types-neurons-functions-7638703b72243eca
https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain/brain-anatomy/types-neurons
...that took a few million years to develop and test, but what's a few million years among friends? :)
-
But the strange thing is, what is the problem of everyday life. whats the meaning of it?
Ive got one piece of evidence to put forward, with its matching conjecture.
Life cannot be about supremecy, we are lazy pleasure seeking creatures, and there is nothing successful about us at all, except maybe our never reached potential to do amazing supreme things that never actually happens much.
We *think* we are trying hard, but nature just made us slow and useless really.
So do you really think evolution was behind this? If it was its in a sad and positively retarded local optima.
-
But the strange thing is, what is the problem of everyday life. whats the meaning of it?
The problem of everyday life is simple: survival. Nothing more.
Ultimately, unless gods or aliens exist, there is no inherent meaning in survival, other than over a long period of time the systems that had a will to survive are the only ones that tend to still be found functioning, since all the others died off and were forgotten because they had no motivation to survive. Lasting a long time is not much of a meaning of life, but there it is... Unless gods or aliens exist, in which case all bets are off.
-
God and aliens granting meaning to survival? I don't think that, if god can save us any time he wants, and produce more intellectual property than we could ever possibly produce as us mortal men, that means its even more pointless IMO!!! :(
Yeh ! now we can live forever! who cares now its all catered for you like an inable inept, where if you bother, its more like playing pretend than doing it for real. I see god as the computer chess program, where if you go against it you just get your arse kicked, except it happens in the real physics instead. its omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnireflexive, at all periods of time at once, and ur stuck here, just helpless, with no choice but to do what it says, to carry out your pointless existence youd rather do away with, its worth so little, and to cause no difference to anything, unless god willing for its little pathetic indignant slave.
.
You cant even chop your dick off and knife up your neck and face without say so.
-
God and aliens granting meaning to survival?
I feel like we're in the situation at the end of the [great] movie 'Contact'--after getting the most dazzling look we've ever had, regarding the state of advanced alien civilizations, we then realize that they're still searching, too, just like we are, only at a grander level of technology. For that matter, that was the same state that Truman encountered at the end of the [great] movie 'The Truman Show'. That's sort of my greatest fear.
Contact Part II Journey Through Time & Space
Feb 10, 2008
RainStormRaider
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzTHC6JSUvM
The Truman Show - At World's End
Apr 23, 2016
Interesting Stuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn5kuDdeGzs
-
Agree. Love the movies two. Utterly terrifying it is to know where we truly are, and if anyone knows out there, they haven't told me yet, I just panic thinking about it every now and again. BTW, dreams are telepathy, not just concoctions of the mind! :uglystupid2:
.
-
Ok I give up, the sequential CPU is parallel but only so far as it has to ex. predict the Next Word before it can decide the Next Next Word, like in the GPT-2 algorithm. Modern CPUs have a lot of parallel components, and word registers as well to speed it up. And their quantum computer uses teleportation to speed up the signals. I can't beat that.
Btw If they use the qubits to go exponential computation tho that cannot be, because yo need to define which bits you want! Ex. 10100001010101111010......they suggest 3 qubits give you 2x2x2=8 combos, but only 3 controllable bits. So I just debunked it, there you go. They are using the quantum computer to speed up signal traveling, not to get more from nothing, as all bits must be defined. You can't have each qubit in both states and define a bitstream! What? 4 qubits = 1111111111111111? No. They need to be different!
-
BTW, dreams are telepathy, not just concoctions of the mind!
You're telling me that all those sexy ladies are real? ;)
More seriously, all three TOISOIs I've heard end up saying that the human race, and maybe us individually, are being tested. This is the one constant through all those Theories of Integrated SOIs, whether those theories involve gods, aliens, or just objective nature. In a test, the subject can't know he/she is being tested, so cannot be told, at least regarding *what* is being tested, especially in psychology tests, without distorting the results. That gives me a little bit of solace--that there is a logical *reason* I/we might be being kept in the dark. If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Steppenwolf - Rock Me ( Lyrics )
10menriquez
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9oXFNbUdn4
-
But the strange thing is, what is the problem of everyday life. whats the meaning of it?
The problem is probably whatever we choose, like right now I think we're living some kind of life-cult. Once you're in, you can't leave, but you also get inducted by surprise. Like anything, if its seen as compulsory, it's weighted towards feeling like a trial. If a convention is being sustained by fear, then common sense may not be up to the task. So, I think we may as well let go of the "we've got to stay alive!!!" because the extra freedom will probably make life more pleasant. I'd say a sensible goal is to have a good time, and the meaning of life is the meaning in life.
These things can't be pursued directly, (Like deciding the meaning of life is x, and then pursing x indefinitely. It may work for a while, but it's not going to keep working as circumstances change.) the meaning is a byproduct, an emotional signpost which informs you about the quality of your path. I'd venture that our subconsciousness's judgement of quality has something to do with our General Narrative Understanding as a species, but there could be even more to it.
-
their quantum computer uses teleportation to speed up the signals. I can't beat that.
Yeah they aren't playing fair lol. ;D
-
So Google's quantum computer can only be speeding up signal transfer or upping the parallel count. Think about it, they say their qubit count per transistor or pc is ex. 52 bit, which gives it ex. 1111111111111111111111111111111111........ bit combos..... but you can't define the strng ex. 111100001111101011001011110101010101010101........it only scales it. To get more compute done they need more components or speed of the components period. Or optimization. They can skip computing using common codes, but they can't plot 52 qubits and think there's enough info in the 52 bits.
My 3 ideas were hierarchy computer, brain-like computer, macro qubits (wirelessly antennas).
https://www.livescience.com/google-hits-quantum-supremacy.html
-
So Google's quantum computer can only be speeding up signal transfer or upping the parallel count. Think about it, they say their qubit count per transistor or pc is ex. 52 bit, which gives it ex. 1111111111111111111111111111111111........ bit combos..... but you can't define the strng ex. 111100001111101011001011110101010101010101........it only scales it. To get more compute done they need more components or speed of the components period. Or optimization. They can skip computing using common codes, but they can't plot 52 qubits and think there's enough info in the 52 bits.
My 3 ideas were hierarchy computer, brain-like computer, macro qubits (wirelessly antennas).
Don't give up Locksuit or youll have to admit defeat to me prematurely, and then... I guess we know who the better man is. :2funny: DOODAH!!!
.
-
But the strange thing is, what is the problem of everyday life. whats the meaning of it?
The problem is probably whatever we choose, like right now I think we're living some kind of life-cult. Once you're in, you can't leave, but you also get inducted by surprise. Like anything, if its seen as compulsory, it's weighted towards feeling like a trial. If a convention is being sustained by fear, then common sense may not be up to the task. So, I think we may as well let go of the "we've got to stay alive!!!" because the extra freedom will probably make life more pleasant. I'd say a sensible goal is to have a good time, and the meaning of life is the meaning in life.
These things can't be pursued directly, (Like deciding the meaning of life is x, and then pursing x indefinitely. It may work for a while, but it's not going to keep working as circumstances change.) the meaning is a byproduct, an emotional signpost which informs you about the quality of your path. I'd venture that our subconsciousness's judgement of quality has something to do with our General Narrative Understanding as a species, but there could be even more to it.
That's being optimistic, I tend to err on the negative side of things, it all looks not worth doing to me here in life...
And AndyGoode If its a test, god already knows the answer, so its for our benefit not his, making the test of the rabbit, for only the rabbit, making it not mean anything.
-
Reading the link, it seems like the whole quantum computer has 52 qubits, each in 52 states? Like rotation, location, size, etc. So you have 52 bits where each is made of 52 bits as well. Just one qubit can be rotated offset Yes, over here No, and so on....10100010111010111. In fact the qubit rotation can be millions of possible rotations. Anyhow big number and they then capture by wireless at one place all their presence and sum it up to a number. I was going to use antennas.
What about having little antenna capsules that each have 10 bits in them each. Your 100 bit sequence is wirelessly sent to a crystal that picks up the count/wave.
-
Yes antennas lock! Figure that out and I'll use it for my project. Wireless adjustments would be super helpful. I NEEDS DEM ANTENNAS!!!!!
-
Locksuit,
Honestly, you're extremely and unrealistically overoptimistic about quantum computers. Quantum computers are not a panacea, especially for artificial intelligence. *Most* problems cannot be sped up *at all* by quantum computers, *especially* the most important problems like NP-complete problems, which are usually graph-type problems, and AI problems. This is the same situation with classical parallel computers; only if a problem is inherently parallel can parallel processing (classical or quantum) speed it up any appreciable amount, per Amdahl's law. There is one known, slight, possible benefit for AI with quantum computers since Grover's algorithm running on a quantum computer can speed up linear search through an unsorted database, but that will likely have limited utility in practical AI problems. Maybe it could help in a vision system for searching many possible identifications of a viewed object, but I'm not even sure of that. Certain optimization problems could also be solved well by quantum computers, but again, the use of such solution ability as applied to AI is not very clear, at least not to me. The people most interested in quantum computers are government folks who want to read private, encrypted messages, which can be done by Shor's algorithm, but that application is not related to AI. All that suggests that quantum computers are not of interest to the common man, other than protential for privacy threats.
https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/The_Limits_of_Quantum_Computers.pdf
https://quantiki.org/wiki/grovers-search-algorithm
http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.dui0538e/BABFGJGF.html
I know I like to talk about quantum computers, as do others on AI forums, but personally that's only because I've always been fascinated by quantum mechanics, not because I have any interest or hope in applying quantum computers to AI. Looking to quantum computers for a big advance in AI is the wrong place to look: that's a simple-minded solution that government folks and uninformed laymen look to, and you don't want to be in either of those groups.
The real situation is even more extreme than what I just described: Marvin Minsky ("the father of artificial intelligence") and others believe that faster computing is virtually *useless* for producing AGI because existing hardware is already *far* more than adequate for the task. This is called "hardware overhang".
https://aiimpacts.org/hardware-overhang/
What Marvin Minsky and Jeff Hawkins (and myself) believe is that the key to AGI is a clever *organization* of what we already have. In other words, it's an intellectual problem, not a hardware problem, which in turn means anybody could make a breakthrough without need of Google-sized research teams working with cryogenic engineers, physics experts, and number theory experts. That's very good news for the common man like you and I and everybody else on this forum.
(p. 36)
According to functionalism, being intelligent or having a
mind is purely a property of organization and has nothing inher-
ently to do with what you're organized out of. A mind exists in
any system whose constituent parts have the right causal rela-
tionship with each other, but those parts can just as validly be
neurons, silicon chips, or anything else. Clearly, this view is
standard issue to any would-be builder of intelligent machines.
Consider: Would a game of chess be any less real if it was
played with a salt shaker standing in for a lost knight piece?
Clearly not.
Hawkins, Jeff. 2004. On Intelligence. New York: Times Books.
-
Yes antennas lock! Figure that out and I'll use it for my project. Wireless adjustments would be super helpful. I NEEDS DEM ANTENNAS!!!!!
I vote that's a good idea too. it means you don't need to store the mesh for the perceptron, if you wirelessly connect to the retina instead.
you use a complex batch of filters?- for what eye pixels it stands for, for its image. that's actually a huge cheat if its any good. if you cant
do rf, you can just use an ORDINARY MICROPHONE! if the pixels emit a frequency each!
-
you can just use an ORDINARY MICROPHONE!
Nice! I'll try to help if anyone decides to figure out large scale wireless communication. I tried to do it before with lights but ran into some difficulties... Seems like all of our projects could benefit from this kind of tech.
-
It actually is a cool idea. a "wireless perceptron"
<spoiler alert>>>
so instead of doing the impossible to wire all to all mesh, you need a filter block on each cell that picks out the frequencies each one wants.if it was hard programmed, youd need a resistor and capacitor block, but they could be really small. but if you wanted it to learn, the filters would have "tune into" the retina. >:D
-
Alright, I'll take a look at filters on the weekend, gotta catch up on my non AI studies :(.
-
I vote that's a good idea too.
Add my vote for wireless neural networks, too. For my own reasons I believe that is the technology of the future.
-
How about the power? Wireless electromagnetic coils and/or photovoltaic, or power supply wires and just go wireless with the communication?
-
;D love this idea, HS.
That "photo voltaic" idea is a very good one as well, and H.S. definitely came up with that one. Because logic doesn't need high volts to run, I think it would work. But when its coming out of the net to the robots legs then youll need to amplify it and maybe go to a solid battery connection then. But maybe to retransmit after you receive might take some amount of power, I didn't think of that.
So that initial idea from ages ago, to have floating in a soup, picking up the signals from each other, might actually be practical, just have to make sure the signal is getting from all the blocks to all the blocks without getting obstructed. Then the cells just need a filter per wireless synapse.
They could be a chip board each, I think if you wanted to make it more rigid, they could just slot in like cards, maybe 2cmx2cmxmm if you use really small low voltage parts, with the solar panel on them, picking up the light... and maybe 2 piezoelectric transducers for the transmitter and receiver??
Anyhow I like the idea, if I ever implement this myself ill put your callsign somewhere printed on the cells somewhere.
-
So that initial idea from ages ago, to have floating in a soup, picking up the signals from each other, might actually be practical, just have to make sure the signal is getting from all the blocks to all the blocks without getting obstructed.
Biological neurons already float in a 'soup' of sorts. It's called 'glial cells', and glial cells are like the packing material between those spindly neurons, and they also supply nutrients and oxygen to the neurons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glia
It shouldn't be too difficult to find some sort of battery acid, fuel, or other energy-supplying chemical to circulate through artificial glial cells to power the artificial neurons.
-
I wonder if that's where HS got the idea from.
Heres a picture of a net, see how many wires there are? if you could replace the wires with a filter in the cell itself for each connection, plus maybe a couple of piezos, the cells would be bigger but it would be a lot easier to fit it together, wiring it would be heaps harder, getting your fingers into that mesh would be impossible.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTypFkvGPMFRjBd-Aw5xOfpGmmM6sJk3hiWqE46aM58bdlDEP0J)
-
Another idea would be to use the principle of a self-winding watch... Just put a tiny current generator at each neuron that generates a tiny bit of current when two surfaces move near each other, like tiny magnets or tiny pendulums, and just physically jiggle the whole network every once in a while to ensure that all those tiny generators keep supplying energy.
-
yeh excellent idea. :D
use a mechanical oscillator and power em all at the same time from the outside.
if it were just weights the whole thing could work without electricity too, using solid,liquid or gas logic instead.
-
Nice ideas!
Before, I thought that if the cells are suspended freely then the cohesion substance needs to be resistant to change, like something between jello and hand sanitizer. Otherwise everything would flow and disarrange with thermal, nutrient, and external motion currents. But it would be literally mind-blowing if it could do that without consequences. Before, it wouldn't have worked because the use of light signals made it direction & distance sensitive, but now I don't see why not, if the signals can reach everywhere. As you said, this would also simplify the wireless charging since probability would be working with us, each energy converter would eventually be in an orientation/motion to absorb power. ...So on second thought lets do that. Actual neuron soup! Yeah Baby! Chaos FTW!
-
I wonder if that's where HS got the idea from.
I got my first idea by thinking about these symbols, lol:
(https://i.ibb.co/9qw6tg5/istockphoto-1162772788-1024x1024.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9qw6tg5)
-
I wonder if that's where HS got the idea from.
I got my first idea by thinking about these symbols, lol:
(https://i.ibb.co/9qw6tg5/istockphoto-1162772788-1024x1024.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9qw6tg5)
ha funny.
-
I was thinking about it again, and if you went to a megahert, you could have a 1000x1000 screen connected to as many cells as you want (even billions) because they are only different combinations of the screen, and if you wanted to do deep learning with it, maybe u could isolate the volumes, and go through some kind of redunction back to a million again, and keep going.
So even if it was a megahert only, I think its still quite workable to something amazing still - but ud have to play around with it a bit.
-
yeh excellent idea. :D
use a mechanical oscillator and power em all at the same time from the outside.
Thanks. What gave me the physical motion idea was that, after I posted my idea of artificial glia, I realized that any kind of liquid energy supply would likely tend to insulate the artificial neurons from radio waves, light waves, or sound waves, so I wanted an independent form of energy that would not insulate other types of wave signals, so mechanical motion would achieve that. Primitive but effective. For that matter, the system could shake itself--just make some motor [output] neurons that trigger an artificial leg, and motivate that leg to kick every so often by making it uncomfortable until it stretched its leg. IT'S ALIVE!!!
(https://www.ohgizmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/monopoderobot.jpg)
-
That robot looks amusing. Theres probably a microorganism that's a blob with a leg connected to it. Bots can be any shape imaginable, its funny.
-
Theres probably a microorganism that's a blob with a leg connected to it.
Or not so micro.
(https://insectsexplained.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/inch-worm.jpg)
How Does An Automatic Watch Work? - Patek Philippe 5180 | Watchfinder & Co.
Feb 23, 2018
Watchfinder & Co.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eMTWX07eY4