From: Billy Brown (bbrown@conemsco.com)
Date: Mon Dec 21 1998 - 10:23:03 MST
Eugene Leitl wrote:
> a biological organism,
> comparing to our trivial handiwork is the ultimate in complexity and
> robustness, and is not the product of rational design. As to
> work (computation), that is cheap enough with MNT.
>
> Hijacking that principle for technical designs appears perfectly
> possible, in fact this is exactly what's happening right now, albeit
> the results have not spilled into the industry yet..
<snip>
> Of course the artifexes, unless cheaply cloned, are the bottleneck in
> the equation. The point is, you don't need them. YMMV..
<snip>
> You could do a lot of funky
> things though, if you'd apply GA to a really fast simulator engine
> (let's say a throughput of about 1 gps (generation/s) on a population
> of a few thousand individua)..
To do evolutionary design you need three things: a mechanism for simulating
(or creating) a large population of possible designs, a mutation mechanism
capable of producing useful variations on an existing design, and a pruning
mechanism capable of weeding out inferior designs.
In the biotech field, where people are using these techniques to make
molecules, meeting these conditions is easy. Real molecules can be built
and tested quickly by automated equipment, and generating vast numbers of
variants on a known molecule is fairly straitforward.
In the engineering world, none of these conditions can be met. You can't
build a machine that will simulate ten thousand variations on a
next-generation processor at a high time rate, and building real processors
instead is too slow and expensive to be useful. Even if you could, making
ten thousand random changes in a chip design will simply give you ten
thousand non-functional chips - the capacity for incremental improvement
that biological organisms exhibit simply isn't there. Finally, how do you
tell which design is best? A simple-minded speed test won't do - you need a
complex set of performance measurements, and an even more complex set of
tests to make sure there are no hidden bugs, all of which would have to be
reviewed by humans.
In principle you might be able to make devices capable of evolution, but you
would sacrifice performance and predictability to achieve that goal. Even
then, it is unlikely that you could evolve useful nanotechnology as fast as
it will be designed - evolution simply takes far more processing power than
intelligent design.
> Hardware as http://209.220.44.33/mpf/Nano97/paper.html , you mean?
> Narrowing down the design space a lot further does not appear exactly
> impossible. If the omega hardware is not the proper hardware for the
> SI to run on, what else?
The paper you reference is an interesting theoretical study, but it contains
nothing resembling a blueprint. "Blue sky" theorizing is not the same thing
as detailed design work. Turning the idea into reality requires an
engineering project that would make the Apollo program look like a couple of
kids playing with toy blocks.
> I could initiate a search in rule
> space and cast the optimal or near-optimal rule into molecular
> circuitry with comparatively little effort (well, make that a
> future me in a few decades). If your computer is a 3d array of
> identical, simple cells, all you have to worry are details like
> power, cooling, and I/O. Unless you're a pioneer with a faible
> for herculean deeds, you can reuse parts of other designs..
If it were that easy, we'd already do it that way. For almost any problem
of significance, the applicable rule space is far too large to be searched
by any simple-minded process. If you don't believe me, give it a try..
The bottom line is that in engineering, there is no magical substitute for
sentient minds. Turning an idea into a functioning device is a process that
requires creativity, and the chances of it being automated without AI are
pretty slim.
Billy Brown, MCSE+I
bbrown@conemsco.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:04 MST