From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Fri Jul 30 1999 - 07:58:54 MDT
> J. R. Molloy <jr@shasta.com> wrote:
> Eliezer wrote,
> >The quantity and architecture of hardware *available* is a major factor in
> >software design. Yes, we'll have a much better idea of what it takes to
> >run an AI after the first version fails - but I still have to guess,
> >now, with what I know now.
> James Bailey makes a pitch for parallel processing in his book _After
> Thought, The Challenge to Human Intelligence_.
> If you've read it, do you agree with him?
I've read about half of it (it keeps getting stuck in the middle of
the "too finish" stack). It is clear that parallel processing will
be an important part of any AI/IA. The interesting thing about
parallel/distributed processing is that it driven by two factors
(a) economics -- you can't make "big" perfect chips, and (b)
themodynamics -- you can't make the computronium really "dense"
without melting it. It is doubtful that we would have willingly
engaged in parallel processing if we hadn't been pushed into it
by these constraints.
The interesting thing from my perspective is the variety of computing
architectures/algorithms that seem to be developing (Harvard,
cellular automata, neural nets, genetic algorithms, quantum computing,
reconfigurable -- that seem to be useful for a variety of specific
tasks (controlled sequencing, reality simulations, learning, evolution,
factoring, adaptability [respectively]). Parallel processing simply
makes most or all of these approaches much more powerful. The interesting
thing about the architecture of the brain would seem to be the *huge*
amount of asynchronous [subconscious] parallel processing that is
occuring. This only gets noticed/integrated at the very highest levels.
That bodes well for AI since it means that complex problems can be
broken down into lots of simple problems that can be programmed/processed/
solved at levels we can easily comprehend. The algorithms to do
the results "merging" and "selection" are *not* going to be
fun however.
I've got some questions re: mental processing. After reading Calvin's
books on survival/evolution/selection of ideas in the brain, I have
been mentally attempting to verify these ideas to some degree.
I will be doing something that doesn't require "complete attention"
such as reading a book. I'll then get a little "tickle" in my mind
about an "inconsistancy" or something that "doesn't make sense".
I've got myself trained sufficiently to let these thoughts "bubble"
to the surface, and when they do, I realize that it is something
*totally* unrelated to what I've been reading. The degree of
disconnectedness between my conscious attention stream and
unconscious thoughts is sometimes rather shocking.
Does anyone else have experiences like this? Are male/female
patterns consistantly different in these areas [i.e. males
are more uniformly single-minded while females are more
multi-minded?]. Finally, on a rather scarey note, if I
continue to reinforce the entertainment of random subconscious
thoughts, could this lead to schizophrenia?
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:36 MST