4 ms·

Perhaps it would be more practical to use biological components to accelerate software...

by meric 11y ago

ludamad 11y ago
And then use this to train neural nets ;)
dnautics 11y ago
As someone who codes and does a lot of wet biology/chemistry... What calculations would you suggest be accelerated biologically?
- meric 11y ago
  The comment was playing on how much more efficient biological components are compared to digital ones. An actual attempt to answer your question. Currently it takes quite a lot of computation to detect outlines of objects in a raster image. This is an ability innate to many animals. Suppose we had the technology to keep individual brain cells of an insect alive, and ability to interface with biological neurons, we could pass visual data through, say, an insect's eyes and brain, and get a signal on the other end that corresponds to vectors and lines that describe the object in the visual data. The insect brain is able to process images orders of magnitudes more efficiently than modern computers. Or we could make some sort of Dog helmet, hopefully without a physical connection, that somehow transmit the vector data inside the Dog's brain to our computers. Anyways, all of this looks almost impossible. We simply don't have the technology to interface with the detailed and intricate data that is present our bodies, as our brain process the world around us. I do think one day we will be overlaying data in our own eyes using some sort of neural implant. That device will probably rely on existing vision-related, biological, computational infrastructure in our minds. I wouldn't be surprised if it's two hundreds years away. P.S. Here's an article relating to the idea of putting insect brains in robots: http://www.kurzweilai.net/robots-with-insect-brains http://www.kurzweilai.net/robots-with-insect-brains It's talking about a replicated insect brain on digital hardware though.
- ajuc 11y ago
  Sth paralelizable. Like pathfinding, or factorization. Could we do a bacteria that reproduces with part of genome changed in predictable way - like ... 100 ... ---> ... 110 ... -> ... 111 ... \ \-> ... 101 ... \ -> ... 010 ... -> ... 011 ... \-> ... 001 ... And then checks that number in some way and signalizes somehow when it arrived at solution ? For example by releasing a toxine that kill others and reproducing without changes from that point on. If we could, we could beat exponential-time problems in linear time as long as there's enough space and growth medium :)
  - IanCal 11y ago
    The interesting problem you hit is although you suddenly CSV do things in linear time, you now have an exponential space problem. So suddenly your problem scales from test tube to swimming pool to ocean sizes.
    - ajuc 11y ago
      Right, so in the end constants matter, and the question is - are bacteries smaller than computers are fast?

Perhaps it would be more practical to use biological components to accelerate software...

by meric 11y ago

Perhaps it would be more practical to use biological components to accelerate software...

ludamad 11y ago

And then use this to train neural nets ;)

dnautics 11y ago

As someone who codes and does a lot of wet biology/chemistry... What calculations would you suggest be accelerated biologically?

meric 11y ago
The comment was playing on how much more efficient biological components are compared to digital ones. An actual attempt to answer your question. Currently it takes quite a lot of computation to detect outlines of objects in a raster image. This is an ability innate to many animals. Suppose we had the technology to keep individual brain cells of an insect alive, and ability to interface with biological neurons, we could pass visual data through, say, an insect's eyes and brain, and get a signal on the other end that corresponds to vectors and lines that describe the object in the visual data. The insect brain is able to process images orders of magnitudes more efficiently than modern computers. Or we could make some sort of Dog helmet, hopefully without a physical connection, that somehow transmit the vector data inside the Dog's brain to our computers. Anyways, all of this looks almost impossible. We simply don't have the technology to interface with the detailed and intricate data that is present our bodies, as our brain process the world around us. I do think one day we will be overlaying data in our own eyes using some sort of neural implant. That device will probably rely on existing vision-related, biological, computational infrastructure in our minds. I wouldn't be surprised if it's two hundreds years away. P.S. Here's an article relating to the idea of putting insect brains in robots: http://www.kurzweilai.net/robots-with-insect-brains http://www.kurzweilai.net/robots-with-insect-brains It's talking about a replicated insect brain on digital hardware though.
ajuc 11y ago
Sth paralelizable. Like pathfinding, or factorization. Could we do a bacteria that reproduces with part of genome changed in predictable way - like ... 100 ... ---> ... 110 ... -> ... 111 ... \ \-> ... 101 ... \ -> ... 010 ... -> ... 011 ... \-> ... 001 ... And then checks that number in some way and signalizes somehow when it arrived at solution ? For example by releasing a toxine that kill others and reproducing without changes from that point on. If we could, we could beat exponential-time problems in linear time as long as there's enough space and growth medium :)
- IanCal 11y ago
  The interesting problem you hit is although you suddenly CSV do things in linear time, you now have an exponential space problem. So suddenly your problem scales from test tube to swimming pool to ocean sizes.
  - ajuc 11y ago
    Right, so in the end constants matter, and the question is - are bacteries smaller than computers are fast?