# IBM initiates the beginning of the end. (A microprocessor that can rewire itself.)



## Damn_Smooth (Aug 18, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14574747



> IBM has developed a microprocessor which it claims comes closer than ever to replicating the human brain.
> 
> The system is capable of "rewiring" its connections as it encounters new information, similar to the way biological synapses work.
> 
> Researchers believe that that by replicating that feature, the technology could start to learn.









It's only a matter of time now.


----------



## m4gicfour (Aug 18, 2011)

I, for one, welcome our new microprocessor overlords.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Aug 18, 2011)

m4gicfour said:


> I, for one, welcome our new microprocessor overlords.



All hail master Bender.


----------



## twilyth (Aug 18, 2011)

Interesting, but does this remind anyone else of a PGA (programmable gate array)?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Aug 18, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Interesting, but does this remind anyone else of a PGA (programmable gate array)?



It sounds similar, but I'm nowhere near educated enough on the subject to comment on differences.


----------



## hat (Aug 18, 2011)

Doesn't the programmable gate array have to be manually programmed, though?


----------



## twilyth (Aug 19, 2011)

Yes.  IIRC, it's wired so that you burn out the connections you don't want.  I just meant in terms of the concept.

Although even if you could reverse the process on the fly, this sounds different in another way too.  According to the article, it doesn't just enable or disable certain connections, but gives each one a weight.  So it might not use a particular connection very often, but it doesn't ditch it completely either.  That's how I read it anyway.  Ofc they can't give the media too much detail at this point.


----------



## KainXS (Aug 19, 2011)

wait could this mean upgradable cpu's

in the next few decades maybe if the research has good findings


----------



## Drone (Aug 19, 2011)

Ewwww that's disgusting. Now machines will play with themselves. Gross.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 19, 2011)

The problem with everything that can program itself is that it may become useless to the person who buys it.  I don't think learning on the electrical/conductor level is wise.  I think software being allowed to rewrite portions of its code to better handle a task or perform an entirely new task would be preferable.  Yes, it's slower but it is also more predictable and controllable.


----------



## Rock N Roll Rebel (Aug 19, 2011)

it will learn about us and turn us all into cyborgs. "resistance is futile".


----------



## Mussels (Aug 19, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The problem with everything that can program itself is that it may become useless to the person who buys it.  I don't think learning on the electrical/conductor level is wise.  I think software being allowed to rewrite portions of its code to better handle a task or perform an entirely new task would be preferable.  Yes, it's slower but it is also more predictable and controllable.



clearly, its possible to set limits on what they can learn/change. there would also have to be 'resets' so the device cant learn itself into being slower for whatever reasons.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 19, 2011)

Only higher function code can establish limits that are necessary.  Something as low-level as a processor is only effective at protecting itself from itself (e.g. NX).

By useless, I didn't mean slower.  I meant a chip that reprograms itself found in a robotic arm, instead of performing the task given, would end up breaking everything because the decisions it decided to make on its own were not in line with those that bought it/programmed it initially.  Similar examples can be given for every field.

Computers role in this world today is to obedient servants and, what I described, allows them to do that better with few risks.  What IBM is trying to achieve is more like an experiment in building a sentient computer.


----------



## Drone (Aug 19, 2011)

Mussels said:


> its possible to set limits on what they can learn/change.



but they have rights .....

If we assume for a second that humans are walking bio-chemical machines and if they get their true potential "locked and limited" by some creator then it's the same. It's unfair.


----------



## m4gicfour (Aug 21, 2011)

KainXS said:


> wait could this mean upgradable cpu's
> 
> in the next few decades maybe if the research has good findings



They already exist. Thank you, Intel. </trollpost>


----------



## Kreij (Aug 21, 2011)

Mussels said:


> clearly, its possible to set limits on what they can learn/change. there would also have to be 'resets' so the device cant learn itself into being slower for whatever reasons.



Yeah ... until they override the "Three Laws of Robotics" programmed into them and start viewing us as expendable meatbags.

Time to buy more large caliber weapons and armor piercing ammo.
If the cyborgs decide to take over at the same time the zombie apocalypse starts, we're going to be in a world of hurt. 

Zombies - Bad, but slow and easy to kill.
Cyborgs - Bad, fast and tough, but possibility to reprogram for our team.
Zombie Cyborgs -


----------



## Yukikaze (Aug 21, 2011)

Zombie Cyborgs! Kreij, you're a genius! We need a movie about those.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Aug 21, 2011)

Jame Cameron is gonna sue them for infringing his patents.


----------



## Yukikaze (Aug 21, 2011)

Actually. Wait. Do our new Cyborg overlords look like Summer Glau ? If so, I'm all for it


----------



## Kreij (Aug 21, 2011)

Yukikaze said:


> Zombie Cyborgs! Kreij, you're a genius! We need a movie about those.



A really good FPS movie tie-in game would be cool. (key words being really good).

Here's a question ...

Since both zombies and cyborgs don't kill their own kind, if a Cyborg killed a Zombie, who would the Zombie Cyborg side with?


----------



## WhiteLotus (Aug 21, 2011)

Kreij said:


> A really good FPS movie tie-in game would be cool. (key words being really good).
> 
> Here's a question ...
> 
> Since both zombies and cyborgs don't kill their own kind, if a Cyborg killed a Zombie, who would the Zombie Cyborg side with?



Isn't this a bit like like the alien vs predator and at the end they made a hybrid and so they both killed the hybrid.


----------



## Kreij (Aug 21, 2011)

> IBM's work on the SyNAPSE project continues and the company, along with its academic partners, has just been awarded $21m (£12.7m) by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).



Okay ... now we have highly armed Zombie Cyborgs too.

Too bad the article didn't have more detail. It would be interesting to read an overview of how the "learning" algorithms function and make determinations based on experience.


----------

