 | SER-2 [03] Communication of the Security and Solidarity Action Plan | The Oil Drum: Europe | Mission Earth |  |
134 comments on The Spike and the Peak
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
134 comments on The Spike and the Peak
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- March 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- March 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- March 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
The problem is not silicone nor limits of whatever physical. A von Nemann computer is a formally deciding machine ( not : system) and is therefore limited pretty much harder.
Most human decision is not formal it is
"intuitive". von Neumann computing lacks "gut feeling" as well as "ideas".
So intelligence is rather non sequitur -
the new idea is not consistent with the problem.
That is human and most possibly animal
solution finding is not logical.
So far there is no such thing as artificial intelligence.
That would require a not formal theory of context.
Hahfran, we are talking apples and oranges here. I, or we, are talking about computing power, or the speed and physical size of computers as programmable data processors. And here, as far as Moore's Law is concerned, the problem is silicon or rather the limits of silicon.
You are discussing something else entirely. You are speaking of computers as thinking machines that may someday replace humans and all the innate capacities the human mind possess. That is another matter altogether and I would never argue with you on that point. Computers will never possess these capabilities. But Moore's Law has nothing to do with this concept, but only computers as programmable data processors.
Ron Patterson
Partly agreed.
As everyone has the subject of peak of a physical ressource apparently no one is concerned about peak of human ressources.
Outsourcing workload at first is profitable but second one loses skill which grows abroad.
I think that the idea to keep research and development and source out only mechanical repetitive work will fail.
It has already failed in Switzerland.
Their industry depends on continued influx of skill of all kind inclusive of engineering and research experts.
Because as the basic is lost the upper class- so to speak - runs out of ideas.
Manufacturing quality deteriorates and eventually the profit from outsourcing
is lost in extended cost of qualtity control and engineering , rework, and loss of market share.
But the skill is gone.
IMO the way of thinking predominant in a technologically advanced society is already algorithmic. It may be clever algorithms but insofar computers can replace humans because the latter are on their intellectual way down.
Recently a friend adivised me a book written by O'Shea an US mathematician. I said no I am familiar with topology. But he kept on insisting. I read it and I am perplexed. This man has an incredible educational talent. But he is a rare exception.
Thus I am far more worried about peak education than about peak oil and that like.
What people fail to realize is that any AI will have the same mental limitations (and diseases) any human being has, and therefore will act in similar ways. Of course an AI will be non-corporial (less-corporeal at first, until it's computer systems are truly everywhere).
There is, however, no problem whatsoever with simulating a large, very humanlike AI on von Neumann processors. It's not as fast as it might be given optimal hardware, but that goes for everything. Certainly the most useful computers are von neumann computers.
Probably not, however I find this guy's work rather interesting.
Link
Jeff Hawkins
Numenta
November 2, 2007
Jeff Hawkins is the founder of two computer companies, Palm and Handspring, and the designer of many computing products including the PalmPilot and Treo Smartphone. He also founded and ran the nonprofit Redwood Neuroscience Institute (now part of UC Berkeley) and founded the for-profit Numenta, which is developing a new technology, Hierarchical Temporal Memory, based on neocortical memory architecture. Hawkins has a BSEE from Cornell University. He was elected to the National Academy of Engineers in 2003.
Yes. His book with Sandra Blakeslee On Intelligence is worth reading, he's a smart guy, and gives a good talk if you get a chanced to hear him. This is worth keeping an eye on, if for no other reason than it might lead to parallel algorithms amenable to serious hardware acceleration, in the same way (but in opposite direction) as has has occurred with 3D graphics.
Most AI has really not gotten very far, although there are some useful expert systems around (but those are not general AI in the sense that most people think). In chess & checkers, brute force essentially won over AI, just as Ken Thompson predicted in early 1980s.
Jeff's approach is at least interesting and different.
See also: Cyc.