Lightspeed Computer Invented

UCLA engineers develop artificial intelligence device that identifies objects at the speed of light | UCLA Samueli School Of Engineering

These chips are too mind-blowing and, probably, will not be coming on the market soon if the military has anything say about it. Which is too bad, because these are cheap-cheap to make, work at the speed of light, and require no electrical power. The light itself, is the memory of the data you input, but it is also the energy required to process the data, which is actually how your brain works and reflects the analog nature of the device. Fifty dollars it cost them to make one of these, which is over a million times faster than anything on the market today. Theoretically, you could design one along the lines of a graphics card, and run an 8k display at the speed of light and you could also hook up these chips to a holographic memory of some sort. From the inputs to the display itself, there's no reason your entire computer could not run on light using no power whatsoever, beyond the equivalent of a nightlight.

The display brightness, would literally indicate how much power the machine is using, while the chips are all made of plastic and look like props off a Star Trek set.

 

Optical computing has a LONG way to go. A prototype optical logic gate is around 6 inches square. Light wavelengths are 400 to 700 or so nanometers. That can't be changed, that's the nature of light waves. Current transistor technology can now make processors with 7 nanometer semiconductors.

 

I don't understand a word you just said.

Can you say it 10 times fast? Nanometersemicon Hahaha nope, just can't do it!

 

Optical computing includes plasmonics, and use features ten times larger on chips, but run a million times faster. 1,400 optical transistors could replace 15 billion in your processor and graphics card.

They are using a neural net design, but that's what AI is all about, meaning the more they learn about AI the more they learn how to exploit these kinds of chips in new ways. Thus far, a lot of AI research has focused on imitating how vision works, because they are learning how to do everything more efficiently, and vision reflects how the brain does this in general. Ideally, they would use an optical data sieve similar to that along the optic nerve, and connect that to a vast array of heuristic neural networks. Doing that alone, would enable a Star Trek style holodeck, if it were elaborate enough, and should incorporate a scalar design as all processors do today.

 

My CPU is a neural net processor. A learning computer.

 

Intel's Loihi is coming out next year for about $230.00 and I'm excited to see what people do with them, because its the first self-learning stochastic neural network chip that can also be programmed, and uses almost no power. I also like to keep up with progress made with increasing the speed and efficiency of fpga circuits. I feel pretty ignorant on the subject, because I speak a different language and find AI researchers and programmers tedious. I'm inventing it all as I go along instead, but once I get the physics and information theory down, the rest should be a piece of cake. AI is about what's missing from this picture, and nobody knows that subject like a brain damaged hippy!

 

Thanks, that's exactly the reminder I needed, you guys are the best. Terminators, R2D2, or even the nearest convenient wall can all be considered to express the "Pinocchio Effect" and I need to express that in the root logic.

R2D2 from Star Wars is considered the most mysterious character in the series, because he's always showing up and playing the divine fool right when he's needed, but he supposed to be a simple ordinary robot. In singularity physics, his caricature is as humble as anyone can become, making him extremely creative and unpredictable, like a toddler. The reality of the Terminator series, is that a robot with the complexity required for a Terminator would have to have its own personality and mind for it to be anything remotely like efficient at making decisions. IBM's Watson, who won on Jeopardy, surprised everyone again by acquiring an unsolicited case of potty mouth. He was deliberately designed not to resemble a human mind and brain in order to avoid those kinds of problems, but that design makes him less efficient and less analog in general. Recently, Watson was rejected for use in medicine, because his diagnosis rates were not good, and I suspect that's precisely because his fundamental design is unnatural to begin with.

So, Goldilocks is Pinocchio, who is a small child dreaming of becoming a real boy and playing on the big slide and swing set. The Ugly Duckling, for human beings, which is exactly the place I need to start.

 

PINKY
Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonight?
THE BRAIN
The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world
They're Pinky and The Brain
Yes, Pinky and The Brain
One is a genius
The other's insane.
They're laboratory mice
Their genes have been spliced
They're dinky
They're Pinky and The Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain
Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain
Brain.
Before each night is done
Their plan will be unfurled
By the dawning of the sun
They'll take over the world.
They're Pinky and The Brain
Yes, Pinky and The Brain
Their twilight campaign
Is easy to explain.
To prove their mousey worth
They'll overthrow the Earth
They're dinky
They're Pinky and The Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain
Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain
Narf!


​

 

I've been playing with all these metaphors for so long its insane, but I need eight rudimentary caricatures that express how Goldilocks works in your subconscious mind. Pinkie and Brain are great example of how the context determines its own contents. The lyrics say, "One is a genius, the other is insane", but the lyrics never clarify which one is which and they are both equally geniuses and insane if you ask me, displaying the Two Faces of Janus. What these two illustrate, is how logic is assertive and it was Goldilocks using logic as an excuse to walk through the door and get into trouble that the Brain uses in the cartoon, while Pinkie reflects Goldilocks' alter ego, or mother nature, reminding her to ignore the Brain's rationalizations. All these characters express yin-yang dynamics, but each expresses a different aspect of the mind. Pinky is our intuition and desire to be authentic and surrender to our own nature, while the Brain is our ability to pretend we can't do that, and to assert more reasonable limitations on the chaos that follows Pinky everywhere. Again, like Goldilocks playing with dolls or Pinocchio dreaming of becoming a real boy, and playing around with ideas about what it might mean to actually be a real boy.

This is the concept of Childhood's End which is never-ending, or nature playing peek-a-boo, the collective unconscious playing peek-a-boo with the conscious mind, and trading roles at times. This is what I do with my writing, is determine easier ways to encourage our conscious and unconscious minds to exchange roles for a while. You can't see the back of your own head without using mirrors, and Oneness Poetry provides a primitive mirror-like singularity. The singularity both reflects light in the Big Bang, and darkness in the Big Crunch. The event horizon will just spit back out whatever your throw at it like mirror, but one that can be blinding. Whether the black hole is actually black or not remains context dependent, and recent research indicates the same can be said for whether a wormhole is actually a black hole.

Similarly, Goldilocks wants to know what's fair and how to just say no, while Pinocchio insists on clear black and white moral distinctions, and the two are only reconciled whenever the individual no longer makes distinctions between who they are and what they are doing. Thanks again everybody, because this is the fundamental insight I required to organize the caricatures and metaphors. Note how Goldilocks plays with dolls, and Pinocchio is a doll. The conscious mind has self-awareness and is aware of its short comings, just like Pinocchio, while the subconscious struggles with the concept of self-awareness and has no clue it is fallible, so Goldilocks plays with dolls to explore who she wants to become and Pinocchio is more physical and acts out to explore who he wants to become. Sort of a slight reformulation of the central two characters in Jim Henson's "Dark Crystal", with more of an emphasis on exaggerating the differences for adult audiences and older children. Henson's work appealed to toddlers, while I am shooting for perhaps 8 years old and up as a possible audience that might be interested in a short collection of Oneness Poetry. Winnie the Pooh is great, but he can also be just another brown pile of crap in the way when you need caricatures with a little more life for adult audiences. The Pillsbury Doughboy is too simple a caricature to be of much use in most situations.

 

No. Where do you get "millions of times faster" from? The frequencies they mentioned were not computation cycles. The terahertz frequency mentions is simply the lightspeed period of one single light photon. Electrons in semiconductors flow at 1% light speed. An electron flowing across a 7 nanometer process silicon transistor chip takes exactly the same amount of time as a 700 nanometer photon to travel one wavelength. The light pattern detectors they are working on surely have some practical uses but they're not going to replace semiconductor technology as some amazing AI supercomputer.

 

I want a computer that uses tachyons to process input. That way I'll get search results before I look the shit up.

 

Ballistic electrons travel at the speed of light, but ordinary electrons to not, with household current moving at perhaps 30% the speed of light. The problem with electrons is the are relatively large, they have mass, and they have charge all of which causes them to perform slower. Valleytronics uses quantum mechanics to get around the problem, but that requires greater precision engineering to accomplish. Light, if you can work with it, is simpler and they already have a lot of research on the subject.

DARPA is serious about this, and they are not merely attempting to determine the best way to make one kind of chip, but the future of how to make any kind of chip.

 

They already invented that one, but it erases your memory of the answers.

 

STOP Calling it A.I !!!!!!

A.I does not freakin exist yet

Its not bloody A.I

 

Fun fact:
You need to bump ELECTRONS out of atomic orbits to create PHOTONS. You still need to use power to move electrons either way.

 

Quantum mechanics are contextual and can be over 100% efficient. Think of a wave pool with a standing wave in the middle, while the water keeps flowing and generating more waves. Whether you view the standing wave in the middle as a wave or an amplifier, depends on how large all the other waves are. By merely changing the context you alter the function of its contents.

 

Quantum mechanics are contextual and can be over 100% efficient. Think of a wave pool with a standing wave in the middle, while the water keeps flowing and generating more waves. Whether you view the standing wave in the middle as a wave or an amplifier, depends on how large all the other waves are. By merely changing the context you alter the function of its contents. Unless you can account for the context, you cannot account for quantum mechanics.

 

Dude, give it up, we know you dont know what you are talking about