ultra-smart computing, TGIF

So, let's think... quantum computer uses circuits that occupy all possible states simulatenously. Mmmm... So, if I partially design a quantum computer and start building it while I'm still figuring out the remaining circuity... maybe it will occupy all possible designs, and one of those will be so smart it can design another one far better than me... so all I need to do is connect a partially built, partially designed quantum computer to an assembler, and it will do the rest of the work for me, and solve all the questions I could possibly have asked it. Inclduing how to connect to all other possible computers via quantum entanglement chains. And then I can take over the world. Hahahahaha! Hahahahahahah! They'll all be sorry. Hahahahahaha!

I will call it ORAC, optical router and controller, since that is the most likely structure on which to base it.

Emergence

An interview with Tim Berners-Lee recently highlighted his belief that the web needs to be studied scientifically as a source of potential emergent behaviours. Emergence is usually considered a threat, where a complex system can exhibit behaviour that was unpexted, because of unexpected complex interactions among system components. In nature, 50 year waves happen because of the rare(every 50 years at a particular place) interaction of waves coming from different directions, and they can sink ships. On the web, waves of information can bring down servers and even large sections of the net. But it isn't just waves that can casue problems. The internet is a very multidimensional entity, and indeed, even the world wide web is only one of the services running on it, albeit arguably the most important one.

Studying emergence will be a valuable activity, but it is hard to see how it can really work. The 10^11 web pages are important, and to some degree, human interaction with them could be predicted using psychological theory. However, the behaviour of the human is influenced not just by the immediate web page, but by their entire personality, and every experience, every interaction on and off the net. How can that ever be modelled and studied? I might look at a web site and the most important result of the interaction might be an idea it initiates in my mind, rather than anything immediately to do with the site. A dotcom might result once in a while, for some people anyway, even if not for me.

I think there are several different areas of emergence that will need to be studied, ir they can. Firstly, there is the area of information flow, connected to PC and server activity too. It might be possible for example to use the net to generate information waves that could crash telecom networks by setting up physical resonances and correlated traffic peaks. These could be a more dangerous part of cyber-warfare than the viruses and worms of today.

Secondly, we need to think about the human emergence. Occasionally, wonderful new ideas happen as a result of human interactions, and the web creates a superb platform on which to initiate and carry these interactions. But harmful ideas can also emerge. A person with ill-intent may be exposed to new ideas or technology via the web that leads them to a new type of crime, or a new security threat. Similarly, exposing people en-masse to global ideas, religions, ideologies and so on, will inevitably cause problems as well as solutions.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, we need to look hard at the potential of the net to act as a platform for machine-initiated threats, such as machine consciousness. Much is made of the equivalence of net-based processing or connections and that in the human brain. Actually, the might of all the networked PCs greatly exceeds a single human brain now, and of course it increases exponentially. Eventually, people (I think students probably) will be tempted to use the net for experiments in producing machine consciousness, perhaps by hijacking networks of games consoles (on which security seems to be a lesser consideration than on PCs). With the new termainator film in the cinemas, it is hard not to think in Terminator Scenario terms once the true prospect of machine intelligence comes over the horizon.

Perrsonally, I don't believe digital processors of any design can become conscious, but that is more an act of faith than science. However, the net can also link analog processors together. Adaptive analog neurons can certainly be used to achieve concsciousness. They are the basis of the brain. As neuroscience progresses exponentially quickly in conjunction with nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and AI, engineers will get closer and closer to realising such a dream. Net based emergence offers a potentially magnifying effect, allowing interactions to achieve effects by accident well ahead of the science being well enough advanced to do so deliberately. That is the basis of the Terminator films, and is unfortunately just as valid in the real world.

So, not for the first time, Tim Berners Lee has hit the nail on the head. We need web science, we need it now, and we need to do it as well as we can.

Microchip's 50th anniversary

Today marks the 50th anniversary of Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments demonstrating the first microchip.

I like TI. My first proper calculator was from Texas Instruments. In the mid 1990s they also invented the micro-mirror, which is now used in a lot of video projectors, and I believe will evolve into the basis of most future active contact lens displays, raster scanning tiny laser beams onto our retinas.

Computing today would still be a toy for big science and the military were it not for the microchip. As the basis of almost all of our IT, as Gartner's Jim Tully observed "integrated circuits are so woven into our lives that it would be hard to imagine a world without them". And certainly we have a great deal to be grateful for, with the quality of our lives far higher than would have been the case without chips.

Although I have a lot of respect for Gartner, and I fully applaud the huge impact the chip has had on our lives to date, and am happy to agree with their short term prediction that the number of integrated circuits produced annually will rise to 330 billion by 2012, it is always a good idea for futurologists to explore the future without prejudice, and most empires crumble eventually. It is a bit early to say that chips have had their chips, but they will not be around in today's form for ever.

So what of the future? Moore's Law will continue for a good while yet, but miniaturisation of circuit components will hit the stops eventually due to quantum effects. Using multiple layers as well as multi-cores will take chips gradually away from the 2D limits of today. As the number of cores multiplies, in due course, it will make good engineering sense to sever the direct links between the circuits and to suspend them in gel, where cooling will be easier and free-space optical interconnects can replace the complex on-chip wiring that takes up so much space
and creates so much of the manufacturing difficulty. It is then that the integrated circuit itself comes into the final phase of its empire. Once circuits are no longer directly hard wired, self organisation can come into play. Starting with a soup of a family of generic circuit components, self organisation can configure them into sophisticated ad-hoc circuits from the ground up, and reassemble them as the task permits. That means that we will no longer need to have a fixed physical chip layout constraining the behaviour of our devices. Hardware level evolution can be utilised along with software, to experiment with different circuits and processes to achieve a variety of tasks. This approach would be excellent for devices such as robotics, where they can develop appropriate control and sensory interactions to get the best out of their physical capability, learning how to use 'limbs' and so on. As insights come in from neuroscience, direct implementation of these into hardware initialisation, followed by evolutionary tweaking, could quickly emulate a lot of the sensory and cognitive processes used by nature. Results can feed positively back into neuroscience and AI, accelerating the design loop even further.

I believe this will be the route for most strong AI development. We don't know how consciousness works, and conventional research is slow. Utilising a strong positive feedback loop of neuroscience, nanotech, AI, self organisation, evolution and gel computing, the promise is much greater. Gel computing allows the much greater flexibility of configuring circuits that can be complex mixtures of sensors, actuators, memory, digital and analog processing, and adaptive neurons. We will accomplish intelligent machines, conscious machines, a long time before we fully understand their working principles.

I have long since estimated that we will see the first conscious machines with human level intelligence some time between 2015 and 2020. Most other IT researchers think this is ridiculously optimistic, but I stand by my estimate and see no reason to move it yet. Not much has happened so far towards that goal except the weak signals on research direction, but that is always the case right up to the last few years of development when fast exponential or even super-exponential development is involved. The first 10% of the work may have taken a million years. The last 90% will take a few months - in a few years time.