Banner
    Singularity Update: 16,000 Processors To Identify A Cat
    By Hank Campbell | July 10th 2012 02:00 PM | 33 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0® and co-author of "Science Left Behind".

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone...

    View Hank's Profile
    Are we on the road to uploading our brains to computers and living forever? 

    Singularity proponents require a two-pronged approach to believing so; wildly overstating the technology curve of what future computers and programmers will accomplish and wildly understating the complexity of the human brain.  If you believe strongly enough, the future looks bright for an eternal...future.

    But between the reality of what neuroscientists know (and don't even know they don't know yet) and the vision of Ray Kurzweil lies a giant chasm: A two-year old can look at a cartoon picture of a cat and say, "That's a cat" but a computer cannot.  Yet it is getting a little closer. Google X researchers, the people who gave us those creepy cars driving around headless photographing you in your bathrobe while you get the newspaper, say they can learn to recognize a cat - it just takes 1,000 machines using 16,000 processors right now.

    They created a neural network which 'taught' itself to recognize Internet felines, they revealed at  the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2012) in Edinburgh, Scotland last month. 

    Taught itself?  No, really. It took a billion connections, a dataset of 10 million images - "a 9-layered locally connected sparse autoencoder with pooling and local contrast normalization" - and a week of watching YouTube videos but the neural network learned to recognize a cat.  This is an achievement, because they say they doubled the previous accuracy of neural networks by having a selection of 20,000 things and it still worked. Obviously this is only recognition, not context - a child can create an entire fantasy world about cats and the computer still won't recognize a cartoon one, but they achieved 15.8% accuracy in recognizing 20,000 object categories, which they said is a 70% relative improvement over previous efforts.


    The cat that started the singularity?  Credit: Google

    A billion connections is a lot but even if we just assume context and understanding is a factor of quantity, the visual cortex alone has 100 trillion connections, so they would need 1.6 billion processors - gigantic, but the first cell phone wasn't portable either.(1) Yet this network was able to identify things without being told what to search for - their new work was able to classify objects on its own, humans were not 'supervising' it to funnel the learning into what they needed it to learn.

    In other words, they say, it came up with the concept of a cat. And brute force is how humans do it too, it just seems subtle.  We learn to recognize people and things.  Some people have a much harder time remembering faces than others.  But don't get too excited about modeling the full human visual cortex, even the researchers behind this project don't think they have it correct just yet. "It'd be fantastic if it turns out that all we need to do is take current algorithms and run them bigger, but my gut feeling is that we still don't quite have the right algorithm yet," co-author Dr. Andrew Ng told John Markoff  at the New York Times.

    Back to the hardware; how will processors of the future make the giant leap needed for both efficiency and manageable power needed to really get smart?  Researchers at the ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers in Italy said the secret was to build in mistakes.  That's right, building in errors cut energy demands and dramatically boosted performance.

    Insert your Skynet/Terminator joke here.  Those never get old. But a free t-shirt to anyone who makes me laugh and/or comes up with one I have not heard before.

    Citation: Quoc V. Le, Marc’Aurelio Ranzato, Rajat Monga, Matthieu Devin, Kai Chen, Greg S. Corrado, Jeffrey Dean, and Andrew Y. Ng, 'Building High-level Features Using Large Scale Unsupervised Learning', ICML 2012: 29th International Conference on Machine Learning,
     Edinburgh, Scotland, June, 2012 
    arXiv:1112.6209v3 [cs.LG]

    NOTES:

    (1) Ratio of neuronal: non-neuronal cells is in the human brain, says Dr. Suzana Herculano-Houzel, posted by a commenter on Dr. Jeffrey Dean's (Google X - and co-creator of too many cool things to count, including this cat project) Google + page:


    Comments

    Gerhard Adam
    That's right, building in errors cut energy demands and dramatically boosted performance.
    It figures ... something that most programmers had been doing for free.
    Thor Russell
    This is a pretty shallow article that seems more about pushing a point of view than giving balanced science. 
    The ability to identify objects using unsupervised learning is an advance for AI, everything doesn't have to be about the singularity. And while making terminator jokes about errors etc may be fun it is very misleading to do with brains/computers/AI etc. The brain is incredibly good at tolerating errors, its well known that's one of the ways it is so energy efficient. There is a fundamental physical trade-off between accuracy and energy efficiency, and our current computer systems can only function at the extreme accuracy end of the trade-off. Seeking such error tolerance in computing systems may go against current thinking but is quite possibly essential to advance the field. Given that the brain makes many errors but and recovers from them I don't see why you want to mock this line of research.

    Thor Russell
    Gerhard Adam
    Given that the brain makes many errors but and recovers from them I don't see why you want to mock this line of research.
    Let's also remember that there are many errors the brain doesn't recover from so readily.   In addition, I would suggest that there's probably a rather wide range of errors that occur that are indistinguishable simply because there's no way to establish an objective "correct" answer [except in the trivial cases].
    Given that the brain makes many errors but and recovers from them I don't see why you want to mock this line of research.
    The mockery isn't about the research, nor even about the ability to replicate the brain's processing.  In my view, the point that seems to be missed is that no one seems to be willing to recognize that the more you seek to emulate the human brain, the more you will be forced to introduce the same inadequacies that make it such a fallible organ.  So, the ultimate success will result in producing a machine that is just as unreliable as the human being standing next to you.

    So the jab at Kurzweil is well-deserved, because in the effort to produce a human-like intelligence, the question as to how to suddenly make it actually be reliable is conveniently overlooked.
    Thor Russell
    Where I said errors, perhaps uncertainty and fault tolerance gets the point across better. The fundamental law remains that if you have higher fault tolerance you require less energy per correct result. Error correction can give you the required accuracy but with much less total energy/resources. This is well known in communication systems; cellphones, CD's etc wouldn't work very well without it but our computing doesn't make use of this fact at all well, there is massive room for improvement there.
    There are two situations1. Very low errors and low error tolerance -> accurate computation with high energy requirement
    2. Medium-high degree of errors/inaccuracy + error tolerance/correction -> accurate computation with much less energy required.

    The article seeks to mock rather than illuminate this principle, hardly the thing you would expect for a science site. This has nothing to do with singularity like concepts and tying them up together is the opposite of informative.


    The point about emulating the brain is a good one and has totally not been missed by people seeking to relax the error tolerance of computers, however the claim that you will be forced to introduce the same inadequacies to the same extent does not follow as much. Unless you are claiming that the human brain is the absolute pinnacle of not only evolution but what is physically possible then it is obviously possible to make a device that exceeds the brains capabilities in some or several ways and equals them in others. That may be with less errors, more tracking/debugging capability, faster speed, more computational ability etc. Also some constraints on the human brain do not apply to the same extent to computers. A PC uses more than the 20W that your brain uses quite happily. Even if it was the case that you couldn't exceed human brain capabilities (which it isn't) then playing with these trade-offs in a way not biologically possible would still be useful and informative.
    Thor Russell
    Hank
    The article seeks to mock rather than illuminate this principle, hardly the thing you would expect for a science site.
    Because there is nothing to illuminate in wild optimism that hopes for magic solutions and basically tells neuroscientists they are too stupid to understand how simple the brain is to digital programmers in their 60s.

    I actually think anyone who has read my articles on this before would say I am being really, really nice this time.  Obviously you have intellectual freedom to instead read articles talking about how simple the brain is to understand for a 1960s-era programmer like Ray Kurzweil.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Thor Russell
    What are you talking about? I am talking about a scientific principle to do with errors vs energy efficiency. It relates to "wild optimism" and the singularity only in your head.
    Having an AI use unsupervised learning to identify images is also not related to the singularity. It is about unsupervised learning.

    The authors did not make any claims about uploading your brain etc so why do you bring it up? If you try to frame every small step in AI research as not making us able to download our brains tomorrow then you will of course be right but never informative.

    Thor Russell
    Hank
    I guess I can make it simpler; it takes 16000 processors to even identify a cat, a relatively easy thing in comparison to making an artificial visual cortex, much less a brain. 

    You claimed I 'mocked' the research.  I clearly did not. I mocked the ridiculous claims singularity hucksters are making about how this is another path to technology that will lead to magical ascension. Unless you work for the Singularity Institute, I can't figure out why you care what I write about pseudoscience.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Thor Russell
    sigh... no singularity enthusiasts even seemed to comment on this and made no claims so why do you relate it to it? Why not cover and discuss the implications of the actual result instead which clearly isn't pseudoscience, or is that too much effort.
    The following, followed by a terminator joke afterwards sounds like mocking the actual research to me
    "That's right, building in errors cut energy demands and dramatically boosted performance."


    Thor Russell
    Gerhard Adam
    Let me clarify a point regarding AI and perhaps you'll see the basis for some of my comments.
    Unless you are claiming that the human brain is the absolute pinnacle of not only evolution but what is physically possible then it is obviously possible to make a device that exceeds the brains capabilities in some or several ways and equals them in others.
    Actually this has been at the core of my arguments/problems with much of what is called AI.  If we forget about the terminology such as "intelligence" and "consciousness", then it is clear that computing can easily exceed human capabilities in a number of areas.  This is hardly surprising and is readily accomplished by a hand-held calculator.

    On a more abstract level, there's no reason to suppose that similar accomplishments can't occur, and as you indicated, various trade-offs may improve some capabilities beyond those biologically possible.  Again, I have no quarrel with such concepts.

    However, there's another aspect to the AI talk, which is that originated from the philosophical camp of the singularity.  Here we listen to the talk of "miracles" where computers will be more intelligent than humans [not possible in my view].  This is where we talk about being able to duplicate the human brain [again, perhaps possible, but a waste of time].  It is in that area where I argue that one must introduce all the normal inadequacies, because until every aspect of the human brain is truly understood [which may never happen], then the only choice one has in attempting to replicate it, is to replicate all of its systems ["warts and all"].

    So, it simply isn't possible, with incomplete knowledge, to determine what is important and what isn't.  As such, the hubris associated with such claims is what I poke fun at.  In that situation we're talking about a class of people that doesn't even know what they don't know and yet they claim a solution is already possible [including a time-table].  Under those conditions, ridicule is being kind.

    However, back to a point we've discussed before.  I fully appreciate the nature of the "errors" as you're describing them, as well as the role of unsupervised learning.  These are all important aspects of computing and as long as we leave words like "intelligence" and "consciousness" out of the discussion we have no quarrel.
    Thor Russell
    Fair enough, however the point Sascha makes about evolution never understanding anything but still acting on it applies to brains made of different materials just as much as it does to biological ones.It wouldn't be evolution as we know it, but it would be something similar and probably quite disruptive nonetheless.

    Given the constraints on such brains would not be the same as on our neural based ones then a "warts an all" brain in such a situation could still evolve very differently and faster than our neural ones  currently can. 

    Such evolution could push things in ways not possible with our biology. E.g. the brain size constraint wouldn't apply the same, neither would energy usage, there is no reason that aging would stay the same, and the brain could go 10-100 times faster etc. Predicting what would happen in such a situation would be incredibly difficult if not impossible from what I can see.


    Thor Russell
    Gerhard Adam
    Such evolution could push things in ways not possible with our biology.
    If such a thing turns out to be possible, I agree that it would be highly unpredictable.  It would also be about the most idiotic thing our technology has brought us to do.  To strive to create a "intelligence" that might supplant us is just about the stupidest thing I can imagine and anyone that seriously entertains such ideas is an idiot.
    Thor Russell
    Well if you really think mankind is bad you might think it the best thing to do. How are you going to stop such a thing however, the Singularitarians will always be trying to do such a thing. I don't easily see how it can be avoided.
    Thor Russell
    Gerhard Adam
    Well, let me spell it out.  If someone seriously were to pursue such a path, it would lead to open warfare.  After all, we're talking about the survival of the human race.  Trust me ... a few "singularitarians" that think more intelligent robots would be "neat" will be dead before they can push the start button.

    Despite their foolishness, it isn't a joke.
    Well if you really think mankind is bad you might think it the best thing to do.
    See, such thinking declares them to be the enemy of mankind.  I have to admit, the arrogance it takes to even entertain such thoughts is staggering.  Idiotic, but staggering.

    However, I maintain that it will never come to that, because they're on an impossible quest.  It's a fantasy that they have no chance of achieving.  For their sakes, they'd better hope I'm right.
    Thor Russell
    All the more reason to get rid of those damn nukes.
    Thor Russell
    Gerhard Adam
    You know you'll get no quarrel from me.
    Gerhard Adam
    ...however the point Sascha makes about evolution never understanding anything but still acting on it applies to brains made of different materials just as much as it does to biological ones
    Well, that comes with a huge "it depends" attached.  In the first place, evolution doesn't do anything except introduce change [such as it is].  Natural selection operates on that change if there is a selection pressure.  However, this depends on the ability to reproduce as accurately as possible the predecessor versions of the organism, so while it is easily to talk about it applying to different materials.  It's just talk.  Until there is something demonstrable that could be used as an example in such a discussion, it is safe to say that .... No ... it can't happen.  There is nothing, even in principle, that replicates what biology does and how natural selection affects it. 

     
    Thor Russell
    "There is nothing, even in principle, that replicates what biology does and how natural selection affects it. "So memes are not at all related to evolution and social organisms/power structures don't evolve/co-evolve? I don't think you meant it to be as sweeping as that. Where exactly do you put the boundary as to what is possible/likely? 
    Thor Russell
    Gerhard Adam
    First of all, at their very best, memes are a human phenomenon.  Even then, what do you suppose they are selecting?  It's biological.   That's what reproduces.  That's what gets sexually selected for reproduction.  That's what survives.  What else is there?

    As a result, evolution/biology work because there is a mechanism that attempts to replicate faithfully and yet allows for even normal variation, such that consistency is attained and yet not so rigidly that it can't respond to environmental changes.  Even then, we find that genetic information is more readily exchanged which mixes up the possibilities even further.  Within this context, changes that would imply large errors simply don't manifest as they appear they should.  Similarly we get radical changes, not because of differences in information, but rather in how long a particular protein is expressed.  The time element is a significant factor and yet, is rarely part of the discussion in considering evolution.

    So, as I said.   Give me an example of how such a capability would be manifest in any other setting.  Despite the fact that it seems like it should be possible to replicate such biological processes in other substrates, that's is fundamentally meaningless. 

    Gerhard Adam
    Where exactly do you put the boundary as to what is possible/likely?
    At present the boundary is what 4.5 billion years of evolution have dictated work.  We don't find any biological variations that suggest that unique biologies exist.  We find that everything origins from the same basic roots.  No matter how extreme, the full diversity indicates that there is a very specific "recipe" for success and that deviations simply don't work.

    It is certainly possible that on another planet, a different set of circumstances may have produced a different biology, but frankly I doubt it.  In the first place, if life turns out to be difficult, then it would suggest a very narrow window of opportunity so it would be difficult to imagine many diverse biologies at work.  On the other hand, if life is easy, then it raises the question as to why the Earth should have so exclusively locked out other biologies despite the huge range of niches available.

    Both scenarios suggest that there aren't too many viable variations in terms of a biology that works.  I could certainly be wrong, because I am simply speculating, but that's my basic reasoning behind it.

    As a result, when we talk about alternative substrates or other ways of replicating biology, I'm extremely skeptical, because I see nothing to indicate that such a thing has ever been possible, and I have absolutely NO faith in humans deriving such a process.

    "Evolution is cleverer than you are".
    UMinventor
    The brain is to thinking what the eyes are to seeing.
    AI is not thinking, it is following a process of dead thoughts.
    Humans also exercise dead thinking in normal consciousness but we are also capable of 'Ah Ha!' moments and living thinking.
    Andrew
    As I have pointed out elsewhere, those of the transhumanist cult seem unable to break away from the tired old SF paradigm of “robot revolutions”, while overlooking the emergence of a new life-form that is occurring right under our noses. Very real evidence indicates the rather imminent implementation of the next, (non-biological) phase of the on-going evolutionary “life” process from what we at present call the Internet.

    It can already be observed as a a work-in-progress. And effectively evolving by a process of self-assembly. You may have noticed that we are increasingly, in a sense, “enslaved” by our PCs, mobile phones, their apps and many other trappings of the net. We are already largely dependent upon it for our commerce and industry and there is no turning back. What we perceive as a tool is well on its way to becoming an agent.

    Consider this:

    There are at present an estimated 2 Billion internet users. There are an estimated 13 Billion neurons in the human brain. On this basis for approximation the internet is even now only one order of magnitude below the human brain and its growth is exponential.

    That is a simplification, of course. For example: Not all users have their own computer. So perhaps we could reduce that, say, tenfold. The number of switching units, transistors, if you wish, contained by all the computers connecting to the internet and which are more analogous to individual neurons is many orders of magnitude greater than 2 Billion. Then again, this is compensated for to some extent by the fact that neurons do not appear to be binary switching devices but can adopt multiple states.

    Without even crunching the numbers, we see that we must take seriously the possibility that even the present internet may well be comparable to a human brain in processing power. And, of course, the degree of interconnection and cross-linking of networks within networks is also growing rapidly.

    The culmination of this exponential growth corresponds to the event that transhumanists inappropriately call “The Singularity” but is more properly regarded as a phase transition of the “life” process.

    The broad evolutionary model that supports this contention is outlined very informally in “The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?” , a free download in e-book formats from the “Unusual Perspectives” website

    Gerhard Adam
    Sorry, but the numbers are not very impressive.  In fact, they appear down right amateurish.

    Tossing around "billions" when trillions is the order of the day, seems to be missing a rather significant point.

    At present, the quaint activities of humans doesn't even begin to approximate the activity present in one human multi-celled organism.  With over 10 trillion cells and an additional 100 trillion microbes, such a networked set of interactions goes well beyond the paltry visions of "transhumanists" in understanding what biology routinely operates with. 

    The internet is a useful demonstration about how one can utilize billions of nodes and still produce little more worthwhile than the world's largest collection of pornography and idle chatter.  There's no question that the internet is part of the co-evolutionary condition that will drive human culture into the future, but it isn't that significant and it certainly isn't particularly revolutionary. 

    My prediction is simply that people are far too enthralled with their own importance to recognize that "life" is far more sophisticated than the meager organisms of which it consists.  Humans need to get their heads out of their respective butts and stop thinking that they are the "end-all, be-all" of evolution.  Biology will readily render them extinct in the blink of an eye, and all their fantasy notions about singularities will disappear in an instant with them. 

    Instead of appreciating that humans have done well for themselves and have managed to achieve impressive technologies with quite limited knowledge, some people want to extrapolate that slight progress and believe that they are now on the verge of taking over evolution.  They are little more than rank, childish amateurs and don't even recognize their own level of ignorance.
    Phooey. When I was born computer memory was made out of mercury and processors had just transitioned from electro-mechanical relays to vacuum tubes. Now there are setups with 300,000 cores each with a billion transistors. That's less than a 70 year typical human lifetime. Imagine a gain of the order of magnitude of 300,000 billion from what we have today...case closed.

    Hank
    Oh, sure, if we use pretend physics I agree it is easy.   Unfortunately today+future magic = ascension is not really a legitimate prediction.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Gerhard Adam
    Imagine a gain of the order of magnitude of 300,000 billion from what we have today.
    Hehe ... Perhaps you can imagine it, because that's all you'll be able to do. 
    I suppose silicon transistors were pretend physics in 1940?
    Gerhard Adam
    I'm not sure why people always assume that the easy gains are capable of being maintained, so they can just be extrapolated into miracle after miracle.

    Then again, it was assumptions like that that gave rise to us all having flying cars and personal robots, and artificial intelligence ....   Oh wait ... none of that actually happened.
    Hank
    Why not use the laser?  It was also a solution in search of a problem but would we have DVDs without it? Why not use lasers for this ascension?  The answer is because Ray Kurzweil was a digital programmer and not an applied physicist, so chips became the magic sauce.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    MikeCrow
    Who said anything about easy?
    When I worked at a semi maker in the early 80's, no one thought we'd be able to keep Moore's law going for another 10 years, let alone 20. And in fact I use to say we'd probably max (min) out silicon transistors around 2010, and yet they are still making transistors smaller and faster.
    And they haven't yet switched over to more exotic materials and structures that exist. Will we get the scaling John suggested, who knows, but I don't know that I'd bet against it.

    Propulsion systems were never governed by Moore's law, and we have personal robots, they're just not yet human form.
    Never is a long time.
    Hank
    Why would you have claimed 2010 anyway?  There is a physics reason why chips will stop growing but 2010 was far too early.  Even by 2001 no one thought it would be before 2015.  After that, they will start getting bigger again because the physics can't get any smaller than when electrons have stopped moving.

    Counting on a new miracle material or the often-claimed quantum is not realistic; it is far more likely that processors, like transformers, reach a level and don't really go beyond that, they are just customized for certain applications.  Basically, computers as we know them could be like a washing machine; you buy one when it breaks but it is just a commodity and if you want to believe 'now with Chemical X' about the features, you can.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    MikeCrow
    Mostly because I read Drexlers book in 86-87, and he projected atomic scale features around 2010.

    There are lots of miracle materials already, and the last main obstacles(that I remember reading) to quantum devices are lithography, and we keep getting better at that, and temps. And as soon as we get the features small enough we can cool with LN2 which is plenty cheap.

    I agree Silicon will get as small as it can get and then become a commodity, even when custom. But when our transistors had a 2u gate length we talked about how at iirc 100-200nm you could start counting silicon atoms. We would have dismissed 20-30nm as most likely impossible, and yet 30 years later.
    Never is a long time.
    Gerhard Adam
    They are "easy" because they are clearly improvements in existing technology.  Once the Wright brothers flew, it was "easy" to project all manner of improvements being possible without having to know explicitly what they might be.
    Propulsion systems were never governed by Moore's law
    No, but like Moore's Law, they are governed by hubris.

    I don't assume it. But I do note that while many things become widespread in popular thought, the ones that upend the world tend to happen far faster than the fantasy technology and catch most of us by surprise.