|
Authored by: alisonken1 on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 03:38 PM EDT |
On number 2) - that's at a higher-level than the cpu architecture. Until such
time as AI becomes part of the chip hardware itself, it's still just a program
algorithm that must be executed by existing hardware technology - and that's
where he's describing hardware v. software making a "new machine".
---
- Ken -
import std_disclaimer.py
Registered Linux user^W^WJohn Doe #296561
Slackin' since 1993
http://www.slackware.com
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: stegu on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 04:17 PM EDT |
The statement that "DRAM capacitors are not transistors
and charging them does not represent the creation of
an electrical pathway" (paraphrased, it is stated a few
times with slightly different wording in the text)
is formally somewhat incorrect.
The DRAM capacitors are literally the insulated gates
of MOS transistors, and charging or discharging them
does create and destroy (reversibly) an electrical path
between the source and drain of those transistors.
Same for flash ROM memory - insulated gates are charged
to make a MOS transistor conduct or block a current
between the source and drain terminals.
Therefore, A memory cell does indeed function very much
like a switch at the individual bit level, even though
it certainly does not magically re-wire the CPU to
perform something it was not supposed to be able
to do already by design.
The article is well written and largely spot on,
but this stands out as a point where it could be
attacked unfairly and far too easily. The wording on
this particular issue could be changed to guard against
such attacks. It is not a main point, but opponents
in the patent lobby will try to find the weak spots
and concentrate on them, because they probably have
no useful defense against the main points that are
made - other than pointing to old, stale and incorrect
case law that needs to be superseded.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 04:27 PM EDT |
Granted, the paths aren't really
"new" - they were all anticipated
when the hardware was
designed. That's where your argument should
focus.
The paths were not "anticipated". They are physically
etched on the chip at the factory. The transistors are varying voltages in paths
which are always present. No new paths are created. The article states this
point very clearly and multiple times.
It's possible, and
increasingly being
done in artificial intelligence, to implement semantics
using
an algorithmic system. Even your example betrays
this: you say that a computer
can "recognize" the letter F.
Semantics aren't magic; if humans can master
semantics, so
can computers.
Computers mastering semantics is an
illusion in the eyes of the observer. If you read the technical manual of a CPU
you will find an exhaustive list of all the instructions which could ever be
used in a program for this CPU. None of them allow the computer to process the
meaning of the bits.
Recognizing a symbol such as the letter F is not
recognizing its semantics. It is a syntactical operation. Computers are good at
manipulating syntax.
Computers can only execute mathematical algorithms in
the sense of computation theory. This is because executing the instruction cycle
is the only thing a computer can do. A program, even an advanced artificial
intelligence program, is input given to the instruction cycle. And mathematical
algorithms are by definition mathematical entities which do not process the
semantics of symbols. They only act on the raw uninterpreted symbols. This is
part of the mathematical basis which makes the stored program architecture
possible. You are disputing a fundamental limitation of the mathematics of
computer science which is applicable to all programs.
A wisely chosen
algorithm will manipulate syntax in a way that is consistent with semantics.
Part of the art of the programmer is to find such algorithms. Artificial
intelligence is no exception. When such a program runs the observer will have
the impression that the computer understands semantics because it produces
outputs which are consistent with a proper understanding of semantics. But the
computer doesn't actually process the semantics. If we look at the internals of
the program we can only find some pushing around of the raw uninterpreted bits.
It can't be otherwise. Understanding of the semantics is not part of the CPU
instruction set and it is not part of the mathematical computation theory which
underlies the stored program architecture. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- maybe you need to define "semantics" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 05:07 PM EDT
- re pt 1 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 10:39 PM EDT
- re pt 1 - Authored by: PolR on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 11:07 PM EDT
- two nitpicks - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 09:01 AM EDT
- two nitpicks - Authored by: PolR on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 10:01 AM EDT
- Nitpicks - Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 02:35 PM EDT
- Nitpicks - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 03:14 PM EDT
- two nitpicks - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 22 2012 @ 08:51 AM EDT
|
Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 09:31 PM EDT |
The software "understands the semantics" to the extent that
the programmer makes it so.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BitOBear on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 11:17 PM EDT |
Computers don't know or ever see an "F". That thing between those
quotes is the number seventy (70), a.k.a 0x46 in the ASCII and Unicode character
sets. Something in the -display- on a text-terminal would draw the picture of an
"F" when done old-school.
On your computer right now, before your very eyes, some library (like Cairo, or
your X display, or the windows graphical context library) has *sprayed* some
bits around in a frame buffer, some on, some off, at a nearly arbitrary spacing
due to the window and screen size issues, to variously spray-paint that Effness,
that very "F" onto your eyes.
That "F", that 70, could have started life as 'E'+1, a.k.a. 69+1=70.
The computer doesn't know from "F".
Artificial Intelligences are non-existent. There are currently what I call
"coded intelligences" in my Science Fiction writings, where rules like
"Cat" -> {"fuzzy", "warm", "sharp"}
and "fuzzy" -> increment(happiness), "warm" ->
increment(happiness), "sharp" -> decrement(happiness) ;; if
happiness greater than zero then "I like %noun%".
But the computer doesn't know what "cat" really means.
See how my logic "abstracted away" "cat" to happiness +1 +1
-1 ?
===
Similarly, you need to go re-think what "transistor as switch" really
means.
The presence of a valve is part of the definition of the machine. A machine with
valves has valves in particular places. Those valves can be on or off. The
-result- of the machine is changed by altering those valves. The machine isn't
rendered new.
Transistors are electronic valves. In fact, in England English, what Americans
call "tubes" (electronically, for being in glass tubes) the Brits
called valves (for describing their ability to block or allow the flow of
electrons). Transistors are "tubes" or "valves" in this
sense but without all the tedious glass, preheating and vacuum.
So in the sense that going into your bathroom and turning on the tap valve on
your sink doesn't give you a new house, having a transistor allow-or-disallow
the transfer of electromotive force (voltage) from the power supply rail to a
particular fragment of other circuitry doesn't cause device to be born anew each
time you change your mind about between "allow" and
"disallow".
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 07:03 AM EDT |
The 'legal argument' is that the presence of programs switches paths between the
computer components. The charge in DRAM switches FETs on or off, but those FETs
do not switch paths.
There are alternative RAM technologies including static RAM which comprise, in
essence, transistor pairs in a bistable circuit such that when one is on, it
holds the other off. Again, flipping in either direction does not switch a path
between components.
The entire executing circuitry of the computer is made up of switching
transistors. The transistors are formed into boolean logic elements. The output
of the logic elements is dependent on the input. The logic elements do not
switch paths in the computer. Also, the interconnections between the logic
circuits are not changed by the program being in the memory nor by the
instructions they represent being executed by the universal algorithm.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|