3 ms·

You can say the same thing about our computers: they are very inefficient at tasks they were not designed to do. Actually they are very inefficient even at task

by p1esk 10y ago

You can say the same thing about our computers: they are very inefficient at tasks they were not designed to do. Actually they are very inefficient even at tasks they were designed to do, but since they do them very fast, we've been ignoring it (at least until Moore's law started to slow down). Just think about all layers of abstraction present in current computing platforms, and how much computation really happens when you type 2+2 in a Python console. Also, there are a lot more problems a brain solves better than computers. Software NNs slowly learn to solve more and more of those, primarily by better copying how brain does it. So, in summary, vNA might not be a "bad" general computational model, but it surely is very inefficient compared to human brain, when it comes to "computing" vast majority of tasks.

taneq 10y ago
> Just think about all layers of abstraction present in current computing platforms, and how much computation really happens when you type 2+2 in a Python console. That's not a limitation of von Neumann architecture. That's a consequence of us using the vast and cheap computational resources available to us to make things easy.
sushirain 10y ago
Your arguments are compelling. I hope others will embrace them more.
SilasX 10y ago
>You can say the same thing about our computers: they are very inefficient at tasks they were not designed to do. Hold on -- we need to be consistent about what part of them was designed for what purpose. In the context of the discussion, it's the hardware. Computer hardware is only "designed" to be able to maintain a small state while performing a huge number of Boolean circuits (from some large set of possible circuits) per second, writing to external stores. They were not designed to e.g. make graphs, host discussion forums, etc, and yet do that very well --because we can apply software that converts those problems into "do these Boolean circuits/writes really fast". Considering how handily they beat the alternatives at those tasks, I think it would be fair to say that they're good at things they're not designed for! It's just that there remain a few problems that aren't tractable to this approach so far; but focusing on those problems is a misleading picture. >Actually they are very inefficient even at tasks they were designed to do, but since they do them very fast, we've been ignoring it (at least until Moore's law started to slow down) As above, they were only designed to do those circuits and they're good at that.
- p1esk 10y ago
  I have no idea what you mean by "perform Boolean circuits" in the context of this discussion. Bottom line: vNA based computers are inefficient, regardless of what they are trying to compute. But they do most of the tasks fast enough for us not to care. When it's not fast enough, people build ASICs.
  - SilasX 10y ago
    A Boolean circuit is a circuit that implements a Boolean expression (given input signals set to 1/0, output the 1/0 value corresponding to the result of substituting them into that expression.) Computers at their core are machines designed to implement many such circuits, of many varieties, per second, and send their signals to output devices or their own internal state. When CPU makers design them, they are optimizing for the efficiency (with respect to cost, space, mass, energy consumption, et/vel cetera) with which they perform that task. They do not specifically optimize them for hosting forum discussions; instead, the software or OS designer chooses instructions for the CPU that allow it to accomplish that efficiently. All of the above was in response to your claim that computers are only (somewhat) efficient at what they're designed to do. But they're designed to implement boolean circuits (and write to peripherals), they're not designed to host discussion forums, et cetera, and yet they're still good at the latter. What do you disagree with there? >Bottom line: vNA based computers are inefficient, regardless of what they are trying to compute If modern computers are "inefficient" at summing numbers (or hosting discussion forums, for that matter), then may I forever be dredged in Soviet bureaucracy!
    - p1esk 10y ago
      Computers are circuits. Those circuits don't change every second. They never change, unless there's a programmable logic embedded somewhere. Perhaps you're confusing "circuits" and "operations", e.g. "adder" and "addition"? Of course CPU designers optimize those circuits for speed/power/etc. of the instructions. No one says the implementation of those instructions is inefficient. It's the way of performing high level tasks, dictated by available instructions in the ISA, which in turn is dictated by vNA, is inefficient. Why would we care about how efficient are the instructions, if the tasks we are interested in, when performed with those instructions, are inefficient?

by p1esk 10y ago

taneq 10y ago

> Just think about all layers of abstraction present in current computing platforms, and how much computation really happens when you type 2+2 in a Python console. That's not a limitation of von Neumann architecture. That's a consequence of us using the vast and cheap computational resources available to us to make things easy.

sushirain 10y ago

Your arguments are compelling. I hope others will embrace them more.

SilasX 10y ago

>You can say the same thing about our computers: they are very inefficient at tasks they were not designed to do. Hold on -- we need to be consistent about what part of them was designed for what purpose. In the context of the discussion, it's the hardware. Computer hardware is only "designed" to be able to maintain a small state while performing a huge number of Boolean circuits (from some large set of possible circuits) per second, writing to external stores. They were not designed to e.g. make graphs, host discussion forums, etc, and yet do that very well --because we can apply software that converts those problems into "do these Boolean circuits/writes really fast". Considering how handily they beat the alternatives at those tasks, I think it would be fair to say that they're good at things they're not designed for! It's just that there remain a few problems that aren't tractable to this approach so far; but focusing on those problems is a misleading picture. >Actually they are very inefficient even at tasks they were designed to do, but since they do them very fast, we've been ignoring it (at least until Moore's law started to slow down) As above, they were only designed to do those circuits and they're good at that.

p1esk 10y ago
I have no idea what you mean by "perform Boolean circuits" in the context of this discussion. Bottom line: vNA based computers are inefficient, regardless of what they are trying to compute. But they do most of the tasks fast enough for us not to care. When it's not fast enough, people build ASICs.
- SilasX 10y ago
  A Boolean circuit is a circuit that implements a Boolean expression (given input signals set to 1/0, output the 1/0 value corresponding to the result of substituting them into that expression.) Computers at their core are machines designed to implement many such circuits, of many varieties, per second, and send their signals to output devices or their own internal state. When CPU makers design them, they are optimizing for the efficiency (with respect to cost, space, mass, energy consumption, et/vel cetera) with which they perform that task. They do not specifically optimize them for hosting forum discussions; instead, the software or OS designer chooses instructions for the CPU that allow it to accomplish that efficiently. All of the above was in response to your claim that computers are only (somewhat) efficient at what they're designed to do. But they're designed to implement boolean circuits (and write to peripherals), they're not designed to host discussion forums, et cetera, and yet they're still good at the latter. What do you disagree with there? >Bottom line: vNA based computers are inefficient, regardless of what they are trying to compute If modern computers are "inefficient" at summing numbers (or hosting discussion forums, for that matter), then may I forever be dredged in Soviet bureaucracy!
  - p1esk 10y ago
    Computers are circuits. Those circuits don't change every second. They never change, unless there's a programmable logic embedded somewhere. Perhaps you're confusing "circuits" and "operations", e.g. "adder" and "addition"? Of course CPU designers optimize those circuits for speed/power/etc. of the instructions. No one says the implementation of those instructions is inefficient. It's the way of performing high level tasks, dictated by available instructions in the ISA, which in turn is dictated by vNA, is inefficient. Why would we care about how efficient are the instructions, if the tasks we are interested in, when performed with those instructions, are inefficient?