godlessgambler writes "Within the past couple of years, memristors have morphed from obscure jargon into one of the hottest properties in physics. They've not only been made, but their unique capabilities might revolutionize consumer electronics. More than that, though, along with completing the jigsaw of electronics, they might solve the puzzle of how nature makes that most delicate and powerful of computers — the brain."
That we've developed a whole industry based on an incomplete model, I wonder how things would have developed if the memristor had existed 30 years ago. Exciting times as a lot of things will be re-examined.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday July 11, @04:47AM (#28658711)
Probably nothing significant, seeing as you can emulate exactly what a digital memristor does with 6 transistors and some electricity always applied. Memristors in CPU/logic would not be viable because of their low wear cycles and very high latencies. It would make for some nice multi-terabyte sized USB sticks though.
Probably nothing significant, seeing as you can emulate exactly what a digital memristor does with 6 transistors
Exactly right.
It's not a hardware breakthrough that'll create a true AI - it's an algorithm breakthrough that's required. Faster computers might be nice - but it'll always comes down to the algorithm.
And actually the sooner we create Skynet - the better the chance we have to beat it. Because if we wait too long - that super fast hardware it will be running will could make it too hard to beat.;)
And actually the sooner we create Skynet - the better the chance we have to beat it. Because if we wait too long - that super fast hardware it will be running will could make it too hard to beat.;)
Or the better chance we have to learn live with it. James Hogan's 1979 book "The Two Faces of Tomorrow" details a plan to deliberately goad a small version of a self aware computer (named Spartacus) into self defense before they built the big version. When Spartacus learned that humans were even more frail than he and equally motivated by self preservation he chose to unilaterally lay down arms.
to implement a proper neural network on a von neumann type architecture, it's like trying to fit a square into a circle. So the developments have been in making special processors that work closer to real neurons but still digital. Memristors allow them to get closer to the real thing. Like the article states they did n't even have the tools to test these because of their analogue nature so we're at the begining here.
The purpose here is n't to get faster hardware, a computer can add two numbers together
Kludge a lot of state machines together and you can simulate stack machines to a certain limit.
Kludge a lot of context free grammars together and you can simulate a context-sensitive grammar within certain limits. But it takes infinite stack, or, rather, infinite memory to actually build a context-sensitive grammar out of a bunch of context-free grammar implementations.
Intelligence is at least at the level one step beyond -- unrestricted grammar.
(Yeah, I'm saying we seem to have infinite tape and infinite s
"Repeat after me" is really annoying. If you're going to be that irritating you'd better have some pretty strong evidence to back yourself up. Where is it?
Ah yes, the "our computers are incredibly powerful and we've tried it and it didn't work so the whole class of solutions is obviously ruled out" argument.
Before you make (extremely condescending) statements that something is impossible, you should at least make sure you qualify your terms properly.
"I think it's very unlikely that using current neural network algorithms on computers with current or near future capacities will produce a strong AI" would be a good start.
We certainly do not know what the limits of "neural networks" (as a general class of algorithms) are. We also don't have anything like the computing power to properly simulate a neural network with a capacity where we'd expect to see "intelligence."
You might be correct. Then again, you may well not be. Even if you are, the only people who will listen to posts like yours are people who already agree with you.
"It's not a hardware breakthrough that'll create a true AI - it's an algorithm breakthrough that's required."
On the contray, I think you need a algorithmic breakthrough to understand the brain but you don't need a new algorithim to create a brain [bluebrain.epfl.ch]. Humans have built and used many things well before they had a theoretical basis for how they worked, for example people were using levers to build pyramids long before archimedes came and gave us the "lever algorithim".
Skynet spreads onto almost every computer in the world (ie. there is no central core).
That was just the rubbish from the third movie, which film I'm personally trying to forget. It was also ridiculous: once Skynet nuked everyone and in the process shut down all power distribution and communications networks, all those millions of computers running some little bit of Skynet would be turned off and isolated anyway.Killings us would have been instant suicide for Skynet.
The original 80's vision of Skynet as a vast artificial intelligence living in a cavern somewhere running on its own power s
Of course if you currently multiply the 100 million or more transistors in a current cpu by 6 you don't have any kind of problem do you? Of course a memresistor is closer in design to a permanent RAM Disk. You can turn off the system as much as you want but it instantly restores you right from where you left it.
Now that it is proven all that matters is figuring out how best to use it and what limitations it has.
Memristors in CPU/logic would not be viable because of their low wear cycles and very high latencies.
That's a current manufacturing limitation, not something inherent to what a memristor is. Had these been discovered much sooner, we would be much better at manufacturing them and they probably would have made a significant impact.
First, we don't have glorified calculators on our desktops. Calculators usually aren't turing complete, PCs are. As for the neural networks, while there are many problems that need to be overcome, digital technology isn't one of them.
Humans have been doing this as far back as there have been humans. It is one of the things which sets us apart from the other animals. Or, it might be argued that this is just another way of looking at the only thing that separates us from the other animals.
(Without contempt or disrespect) religion is a great example of how far you can get with an incomplete model. Enlightenment, which some would argue is the highest human state, is taught with nothing more than vague contradictions that hint at a different way of thinking. Most religions use similar techniques to some extent, and I suppose most education must to some degree as well.
That said, I think religion could not have come first, as it's basically a specialised educational system. Besides, you can't
Some people believe that, in true religion, enlightenment is the realization of a rational basis to existence.
That is, half of enlightenment is the realization of the rational basis, and the other half is the realization that mortality pushes that rational basis ultimately beyond (mortal) human reach.
There seems to be some division as to whether giving up on understanding is preferred, since mortality is an absolute limit.
And there seems to be some further division as to whether mortality is really an absol
No. This is a lot of gross overexageration.
Our computers are Turing-complete. Point me to something that is missing in this before I get excited. This new component may have great applications, but it will "only" replace some existing components and functions. It is great to have it but it is nothing essentially missing.
Woops. Posted this below in the wrong sub-thread. Oh, well, post it here, too, with this mea culpa.
Not until we have infinite tape and infinite time to process the tape are our computers truly Turing complete.
Moore boasted that technology would always be giving us just enough more tape. I'm not so sure we should worship technology, but so far the tech has stayed a little ahead of the average need.
Anyway, this new tech may provide a way to extend the curve just a little bit further, keep our machines effecti
What was happening was this: in its pure state of repeating units of one titanium and two oxygen atoms, titanium dioxide is a semiconductor. Heat the material, though, and some of the oxygen is driven out of the structure, leaving electrically charged bubbles that make the material behave like a metal.
The memristor they've created depends on the movement of oxygen atoms to produce the memristor-like electrical behavior. Purely electrical components such as resistors, capacitors, inductors, and transistors only rely on the movement of electrons and holes to produce their electrical behavior. Why is this important? The chemical memristor is an order of magnitude slower than the theoretical electrical equivalent, which no one has been able to invent yet.
I think the memristor they've created is a great piece of technology and will certainly prove useful. However, it is like calling a rechargeable chemical battery a capacitor. While both are useful things, only one is fast enough for high speed electronics design for applications like the RAM they mentioned. On the other hand, a chemical memristor could be a flash memory killer if they can get the cost down (which I doubt to happen any time soon).
Not until we have infinite tape and infinite time to process the tape are our computers truly Turing complete.
Moore boasted that technology would always be giving us just enough more tape. I'm not so sure we should worship technology, but so far the tech has stayed a little ahead of the average need.
Anyway, this new tech may provide a way to extend the curve just a little bit further, keep our machines effectively Turing complete for the average user for another decade or so.
The question is: will be see the result in our lives?
I really wish so, but the succes has stalled computer innovation. Thirty years ago we expected to be able to talk to our machines, now those advances can make it finally possible. Will the industry and economics be able to adapt to make it possible in our life time frames?
AI needs new algorithms to progress. Electronics will not change the way we program computers. They are already Turing complete, a new component adds nothing to the realm of what a device can compute. Expect a revolution in electronics, but IT people will not see a single difference (except maybe a slight performance improvement)
Old designs were not fully explored, ie: Turing's 'intelligent or trainable' [alanturing.net] machines. This kind of electronics can do those old concepts viable, that's IMO the NEXT BIG THING, not just algorithms (looped circuitry is not hard to simulate, is hard to predict).
The Von newman architecture of our 'computers' was just one possibility, not the only or the best, just the convenient. New hardware processing habilities, could lead to new kinds of maybe not 'programable' in the current sense of the word, but 'traina
No. I don't think the solution will be algorithms running on existing digital electronics.
Our brain is an analog machine. Its plasticitiy is not limited to two discrete states. Therefore, the 'software running on hardware' model for how intelligence works is not the most efficient explanation. Our brains operate the way they do because of they way they are organized, not because they are programmed in the sense we usually understand it. To put it another way, the software 'instructions' (algorithm) and the
No, reality got in the way. As much as you can want to have a HAL 9000 in your computer, it's not going to happen, because as far as we know it might just be theoretically impossible to create something like that.
Thirty years ago we expected to be able to talk to our machines, now those advances can make it finally possible.
No it's not. What makes you think it's gonna help with anything you talk about? That's typical of throwing the word "neuron" into a te
The amazing thing is that we consider individual brains to be "intelligent" when it seems pretty clear we're only intelligent as part of a social network. None of us are able to live alone, work alone, think alone. The concept of "self" is largely a deceit designed to make us more competitive, but it does not reflect reality.
So how on earth can a computer be "intelligent" until it can take part in human society, with the same motivations and incentives: collect power, knowledge, information, friends, armies, territories, children...
Artificial intelligence already exists and it's called the Internet: it's a technology that amplifies our existing collective intelligence, by letting us connect to more people, faster, cheaper, than ever before.
The idea that computers can become intelligent independently and in parallel with this real global AI is insane, and it has always been. Computers are already part of our AI.
Actually, the telegraph was already a global AI tool.
But I could stick you on a deserted island all by yourself and you would still be intelligent, right? I'm not denying that we are deeply social creatures, nor that a full definition of an organism must necessarily include a description of its environment. But I think you are confusing the process by which we become intelligent with intelligence itself.
None of us are able to live alone, work alone, think alone.
Did you come up with this because of your own ability to do so? Because except for reproduction, we can easily survive our whole life alone. Sure it will be boring. But it works.
The idea that computers can become intelligent independently and in parallel with this real global AI is insane, and it has always been.
Says who? You, because you need it to base your arguments on it? ^^ You will see it happening in your lifetime. Wait for it.
The amazing thing is that we consider individual brains to be "intelligent" when it seems pretty clear we're only intelligent as part of a social network. None of us are able to live alone, work alone, think alone. The concept of "self" is largely a deceit designed to make us more competitive, but it does not reflect reality.
No, you're completely wrong. It's sufficiently obvious why that I don't feel the need to elaborate.
Actually, the telegraph was already a global AI tool.
Transistors are naturally analog, it's only that we force them to be digital. If we are prepared to accept more probabilistic outputs then there are massive gains to be had http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/02/08/rice.university.pcmos/ [electronista.com]. Work is being done with analog computing too.
I think memristors will be complimentary to existing rather than a revolution on their own yet analog transistors would have George Boole flip-flopping between orientations in his grave.
In the 1970's, the big breakthrough was supposedly tunnel diodes, a simpler and smaller circuit element than the transistor. Do our gadgets now run on tunnel diodes? Doesn't look like it to me.
The Esaki (tunnel) diode is a two terminal device which basically exists in two states (I am simplifying, I know) at two different currents. Its weakness is that (a) it requires a current source to keep it in one or the other state and (b) both input (changing state) and output need amplifying devices. As soon as cmos become fast enough things like tunnel diodes were dead in the water because a cmos transistor does its own amplifying, and requires almost no power to keep in one state rather than the other.
If brain were indeed made of memoristors and these had finite write cycles, could it be that once we have reached these write cycles, the memoristors stop of being any use. Ofcourse the brain would try to minimise dmage to memoristors by spreading the data around but you will eventually reach a limit and eventually the same memoristors would be overwritten again and again, until eventually you start reaching the write limit for some of these, which might explain why we start losing memory after reaching 30s
See especially points 6 - No hardware/software distinction can be made with respect to the brain or mind, 7 - Synapses are far more complex than electrical logic gates, 10 - Brains have bodies, and the bonus - The brain is much, much bigger than any [current] computer.
Putting "mr" in a word can lead to pronunciation difficulties,
For who? Think of it as mem'ristor. There how hard is that? It is true that
the pronouciation of the letter "r" is quite different in Sierra Leone and
Japan, but its hardly a major problem, and the presence of the "m" in front of
it isnt a problem for anyone I know.
The idea that the devices are a "major breakthrough" is a problem though - how
do these differ from any amount of other devices producing "negative resistance" through phase change
Putting "mr" in a word can lead to pronunciation difficulties, just google for words containing "mr" then exclude all abbreviations of mister to find how rarely the sequence it's used. Renaming it to "memistor" would help greatly. Also, the wikipedia page for memristor already contains a reference to memistor.
The 'm' and 'r' are in different syllables, so it's really not an issue. I assume you can handle 'Tim Robbins' so you can handle 'memristor'
Oblig. wiki-link (Score:4, Informative)
What the hell is a memristor, you ask? [wikipedia.org]
Re:Oblig. wiki-link (Score:4, Funny)
The first place being xkcd
Parent
I'm always taken back by this (Score:3, Interesting)
That we've developed a whole industry based on an incomplete model, I wonder how things would have developed if the memristor had existed 30 years ago. Exciting times as a lot of things will be re-examined.
Re:I'm always taken back by this (Score:5, Informative)
Probably nothing significant, seeing as you can emulate exactly what a digital memristor does with 6 transistors and some electricity always applied. Memristors in CPU/logic would not be viable because of their low wear cycles and very high latencies. It would make for some nice multi-terabyte sized USB sticks though.
As for its analog uses, Skynet comes to mind...
Parent
Re:I'm always taken back by this (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably nothing significant, seeing as you can emulate exactly what a digital memristor does with 6 transistors
Exactly right.
;)
It's not a hardware breakthrough that'll create a true AI - it's an algorithm breakthrough that's required. Faster computers might be nice - but it'll always comes down to the algorithm.
And actually the sooner we create Skynet - the better the chance we have to beat it. Because if we wait too long - that super fast hardware it will be running will could make it too hard to beat.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And actually the sooner we create Skynet - the better the chance we have to beat it. Because if we wait too long - that super fast hardware it will be running will could make it too hard to beat. ;)
Or the better chance we have to learn live with it. James Hogan's 1979 book "The Two Faces of Tomorrow" details a plan to deliberately goad a small version of a self aware computer (named Spartacus) into self defense before they built the big version. When Spartacus learned that humans were even more frail than he and equally motivated by self preservation he chose to unilaterally lay down arms.
And how exactly do you exactly plan (Score:2, Insightful)
to implement a proper neural network on a von neumann type architecture, it's like trying to fit a square into a circle. So the developments have been in making special processors that work closer to real neurons but still digital. Memristors allow them to get closer to the real thing. Like the article states they did n't even have the tools to test these because of their analogue nature so we're at the begining here.
The purpose here is n't to get faster hardware, a computer can add two numbers together
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know, with a 10,000 write limit If my brain was made of memristors I'd be terribly mortified.
Re:I'm always taken back by this (Score:4, Informative)
This [inist.fr] talks about neuronal replacement. It looks like your brain may have a write limit, it just automatically replaces worn out bits.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Except if what I and many other people think is true: That the only difference between our spiking neural nets and Skynet is the processing power.
wrong level of complexity (Score:3, Insightful)
Kludge a lot of state machines together and you can simulate stack machines to a certain limit.
Kludge a lot of context free grammars together and you can simulate a context-sensitive grammar within certain limits. But it takes infinite stack, or, rather, infinite memory to actually build a context-sensitive grammar out of a bunch of context-free grammar implementations.
Intelligence is at least at the level one step beyond -- unrestricted grammar.
(Yeah, I'm saying we seem to have infinite tape and infinite s
Re:I'm always taken back by this (Score:5, Insightful)
"Repeat after me" is really annoying. If you're going to be that irritating you'd better have some pretty strong evidence to back yourself up. Where is it?
Parent
Re:I'm always taken back by this (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah yes, the "our computers are incredibly powerful and we've tried it and it didn't work so the whole class of solutions is obviously ruled out" argument.
Before you make (extremely condescending) statements that something is impossible, you should at least make sure you qualify your terms properly.
"I think it's very unlikely that using current neural network algorithms on computers with current or near future capacities will produce a strong AI" would be a good start.
We certainly do not know what the limits of "neural networks" (as a general class of algorithms) are. We also don't have anything like the computing power to properly simulate a neural network with a capacity where we'd expect to see "intelligence."
You might be correct. Then again, you may well not be. Even if you are, the only people who will listen to posts like yours are people who already agree with you.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
On the contray, I think you need a algorithmic breakthrough to understand the brain but you don't need a new algorithim to create a brain [bluebrain.epfl.ch]. Humans have built and used many things well before they had a theoretical basis for how they worked, for example people were using levers to build pyramids long before archimedes came and gave us the "lever algorithim".
Re: (Score:2)
Skynet spreads onto almost every computer in the world (ie. there is no central core).
That was just the rubbish from the third movie, which film I'm personally trying to forget. It was also ridiculous: once Skynet nuked everyone and in the process shut down all power distribution and communications networks, all those millions of computers running some little bit of Skynet would be turned off and isolated anyway.Killings us would have been instant suicide for Skynet.
The original 80's vision of Skynet as a vast artificial intelligence living in a cavern somewhere running on its own power s
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course if you currently multiply the 100 million or more transistors in a current cpu by 6 you don't have any kind of problem do you? Of course a memresistor is closer in design to a permanent RAM Disk. You can turn off the system as much as you want but it instantly restores you right from where you left it.
Now that it is proven all that matters is figuring out how best to use it and what limitations it has.
Re:I'm always taken back by this (Score:4, Interesting)
Memristors in CPU/logic would not be viable because of their low wear cycles and very high latencies.
That's a current manufacturing limitation, not something inherent to what a memristor is. Had these been discovered much sooner, we would be much better at manufacturing them and they probably would have made a significant impact.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Not really Turing complete. (Score:2)
Effectively Turing complete within a certain range of speeds and requirements for state memory.
But the tape is finite.
So, yes, glorified calculating machines. (The boundary between is not as clearly defined as you assert.)
Re: (Score:2)
we've developed a whole industry based on an incomplete model
Wait you mean this is the first time this happens? I thought schools were the first to do that.
The first time -- (Score:2)
Adam and Eve.
Or, if you don't get the reference, us.
Humans have been doing this as far back as there have been humans. It is one of the things which sets us apart from the other animals. Or, it might be argued that this is just another way of looking at the only thing that separates us from the other animals.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(Without contempt or disrespect) religion is a great example of how far you can get with an incomplete model. Enlightenment, which some would argue is the highest human state, is taught with nothing more than vague contradictions that hint at a different way of thinking. Most religions use similar techniques to some extent, and I suppose most education must to some degree as well.
That said, I think religion could not have come first, as it's basically a specialised educational system. Besides, you can't
enlightenment (Score:2)
Some people believe that, in true religion, enlightenment is the realization of a rational basis to existence.
That is, half of enlightenment is the realization of the rational basis, and the other half is the realization that mortality pushes that rational basis ultimately beyond (mortal) human reach.
There seems to be some division as to whether giving up on understanding is preferred, since mortality is an absolute limit.
And there seems to be some further division as to whether mortality is really an absol
Re:I'm always taken back by this (Score:4, Informative)
Our computers are Turing-complete. Point me to something that is missing in this before I get excited. This new component may have great applications, but it will "only" replace some existing components and functions. It is great to have it but it is nothing essentially missing.
Parent
Practically Turing complete. (Score:3, Insightful)
Woops. Posted this below in the wrong sub-thread. Oh, well, post it here, too, with this mea culpa.
Not until we have infinite tape and infinite time to process the tape are our computers truly Turing complete.
Moore boasted that technology would always be giving us just enough more tape. I'm not so sure we should worship technology, but so far the tech has stayed a little ahead of the average need.
Anyway, this new tech may provide a way to extend the curve just a little bit further, keep our machines effecti
Electrical Memristors Don't Exist Yet (Score:5, Informative)
What was happening was this: in its pure state of repeating units of one titanium and two oxygen atoms, titanium dioxide is a semiconductor. Heat the material, though, and some of the oxygen is driven out of the structure, leaving electrically charged bubbles that make the material behave like a metal.
The memristor they've created depends on the movement of oxygen atoms to produce the memristor-like electrical behavior. Purely electrical components such as resistors, capacitors, inductors, and transistors only rely on the movement of electrons and holes to produce their electrical behavior. Why is this important? The chemical memristor is an order of magnitude slower than the theoretical electrical equivalent, which no one has been able to invent yet.
I think the memristor they've created is a great piece of technology and will certainly prove useful. However, it is like calling a rechargeable chemical battery a capacitor. While both are useful things, only one is fast enough for high speed electronics design for applications like the RAM they mentioned. On the other hand, a chemical memristor could be a flash memory killer if they can get the cost down (which I doubt to happen any time soon).
You're right of course (Score:2)
but on the other hand a neuron works with electrochemical signaling and the design seems to be quite good :)
Re: (Score:2)
How about an optical memristor?
Why focus on hopefully soon outdated technology. :)
Practically Turing complete. (Score:2)
Not until we have infinite tape and infinite time to process the tape are our computers truly Turing complete.
Moore boasted that technology would always be giving us just enough more tape. I'm not so sure we should worship technology, but so far the tech has stayed a little ahead of the average need.
Anyway, this new tech may provide a way to extend the curve just a little bit further, keep our machines effectively Turing complete for the average user for another decade or so.
Or not. If Microsoft goes down,
woops (Score:2)
Meant that in response to this [slashdot.org].
Tha's goint to be the NEXT BIG THING (Score:2)
in the computer world.
The question is: will be see the result in our lives?
I really wish so, but the succes has stalled computer innovation. Thirty years ago we expected to be able to talk to our machines, now those advances can make it finally possible. Will the industry and economics be able to adapt to make it possible in our life time frames?
Re:Tha's goint to be the NEXT BIG THING (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Old designs were not fully explored, ie: Turing's 'intelligent or trainable' [alanturing.net] machines. This kind of electronics can do those old concepts viable, that's IMO the NEXT BIG THING, not just algorithms (looped circuitry is not hard to simulate, is hard to predict).
The Von newman architecture of our 'computers' was just one possibility, not the only or the best, just the convenient. New hardware processing habilities, could lead to new kinds of maybe not 'programable' in the current sense of the word, but 'traina
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. I don't think the solution will be algorithms running on existing digital electronics.
Our brain is an analog machine. Its plasticitiy is not limited to two discrete states. Therefore, the 'software running on hardware' model for how intelligence works is not the most efficient explanation. Our brains operate the way they do because of they way they are organized, not because they are programmed in the sense we usually understand it. To put it another way, the software 'instructions' (algorithm) and the
Re: (Score:2)
Huh??! Please explain how this was used incorrectly in the GP post, and then explain what it means to you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
but the succes has stalled computer innovation
No, reality got in the way. As much as you can want to have a HAL 9000 in your computer, it's not going to happen, because as far as we know it might just be theoretically impossible to create something like that.
Thirty years ago we expected to be able to talk to our machines, now those advances can make it finally possible.
No it's not. What makes you think it's gonna help with anything you talk about? That's typical of throwing the word "neuron" into a te
Artificial intelligence? (Score:5, Insightful)
The amazing thing is that we consider individual brains to be "intelligent" when it seems pretty clear we're only intelligent as part of a social network. None of us are able to live alone, work alone, think alone. The concept of "self" is largely a deceit designed to make us more competitive, but it does not reflect reality.
So how on earth can a computer be "intelligent" until it can take part in human society, with the same motivations and incentives: collect power, knowledge, information, friends, armies, territories, children...
Artificial intelligence already exists and it's called the Internet: it's a technology that amplifies our existing collective intelligence, by letting us connect to more people, faster, cheaper, than ever before.
The idea that computers can become intelligent independently and in parallel with this real global AI is insane, and it has always been. Computers are already part of our AI.
Actually, the telegraph was already a global AI tool.
But, whatever, boys with toys...
Re:Artificial intelligence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and here i keep observing that the overall intelligence in a room drops by the square of the number of people in said room...
Re:Artificial intelligence? (Score:5, Insightful)
None of us are able to live alone, work alone, think alone.
Did you come up with this because of your own ability to do so?
Because except for reproduction, we can easily survive our whole life alone.
Sure it will be boring. But it works.
The idea that computers can become intelligent independently and in parallel with this real global AI is insane, and it has always been.
Says who? You, because you need it to base your arguments on it? ^^
You will see it happening in your lifetime. Wait for it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The amazing thing is that we consider individual brains to be "intelligent" when it seems pretty clear we're only intelligent as part of a social network. None of us are able to live alone, work alone, think alone. The concept of "self" is largely a deceit designed to make us more competitive, but it does not reflect reality.
No, you're completely wrong. It's sufficiently obvious why that I don't feel the need to elaborate.
Actually, the telegraph was already a global AI tool.
No, it's called a network.
Free transistors (Score:4, Informative)
I think memristors will be complimentary to existing rather than a revolution on their own yet analog transistors would have George Boole flip-flopping between orientations in his grave.
whatever (Score:3, Interesting)
In the 1970's, the big breakthrough was supposedly tunnel diodes, a simpler and smaller circuit element than the transistor. Do our gadgets now run on tunnel diodes? Doesn't look like it to me.
It was 1960s, and they were quickly obsoleted (Score:3, Informative)
Could this explain memory loss in old age? (Score:2)
Like we need more Artificial Intelligence... (Score:2)
... don't we have enough people producing this already?
The brain is not a computer. (Score:5, Insightful)
Citation [scienceblogs.com].
See especially points
6 - No hardware/software distinction can be made with respect to the brain or mind,
7 - Synapses are far more complex than electrical logic gates,
10 - Brains have bodies,
and the bonus - The brain is much, much bigger than any [current] computer.
It's past time for this idea to die.
Re: (Score:2)
For who? Think of it as mem'ristor. There how hard is that? It is true that the pronouciation of the letter "r" is quite different in Sierra Leone and Japan, but its hardly a major problem, and the presence of the "m" in front of it isnt a problem for anyone I know.
The idea that the devices are a "major breakthrough" is a problem though - how do these differ from any amount of other devices producing "negative resistance" through phase change
Re: (Score:2)
Putting "mr" in a word can lead to pronunciation difficulties, just google for words containing "mr" then exclude all abbreviations of mister to find how rarely the sequence it's used. Renaming it to "memistor" would help greatly. Also, the wikipedia page for memristor already contains a reference to memistor.
The 'm' and 'r' are in different syllables, so it's really not an issue. I assume you can handle 'Tim Robbins' so you can handle 'memristor'