Scientists create a brain!?!?!?

So far the device can simultaneously carry out 16 times more operations than a normal computer transistor.

It's a transistor.

That's all.

Not a brain, not AI... they took an idea on how part of your brain works, and made a transistor.

For those of you unfamiliar with what a transistor is... it's a switch.
It's the building block of a computer. In the right configuration, it can perform mathematical operations.

All they've done is made a faster transistor... if you put these new transistors in the same configuration as the ones in your computer... you will get a faster computer. Thats it, thats all.


If you want more information on what a transistor is, and why this has nothing to do with AI... simply Google "Transistor".


As for actual AI, the movies really have made everyone think we're all going to die when we create it. We're not.
We're going to create AI, it's going to sit in a box, we're going to have a bunch of fun talking to it... then we're going to trash it, and make another one.

As Nohup stated (which has long been an opinion of mine aswell), we are practically destined to create a replacement for ourselves.
The Human race cannot last forever...
whether you like it or not, we will be replaced...
A) By natural evolution.
B) By DNA manipulation or creation.
C) By AI creation.

The human race will cease to exist.
I feel it's better if we design our successor, rather than play a guessing game as to who evolves next.

They didn't actually make a brain, just changed the way current processing works. Instead of on or off, more options. Fasted computers on the planet deal with trinary math instead of binary, and quantum results.

Nothing near public release, but we do have chips that can be implanted to "augment" brain functions. We can fight some cancers with biotech. Very pricey though. That is one of the reasons alot of products never reach the public. No real profit in it. Money > health.

So am I understanding this correctly? This is like the nanofactories where small robots build even smaller robots or larger complex items?

reply to post by johnsky


'All they have done is make a faster transister"??? Really? Is that "all"?

If that is the only thing stated, it still shatters current standards and could put us on another advancement that would completely overshadow and outpace the 1995-2000 tech boom. Your lack of imagination is staggering.

Something to consider, however....humanity tends to find a way to make all inventions sexual early on. The internet was no sooner born than you were able to find things that would make a porn star blush.

No no, I understand what can be done with this new transistor type, I was merely stating what this individual group has done.

It will of course be impressive what others will do with this new form of transistor later on.

I was merely trying to point out that the original article misleads the reader into thinking they created some form of brain.

Where in fact, I can't make a basic transistor, hold it up, and say, look, I made a computer, let alone a brain.

Yes, the future of this new transistor type will be very interesting.

I'm certainly not denying that.

Originally posted by acegotflows

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Quit being scared of the future.

Asimov's 3 laws shall protect us from our own creations.

and what about the saving ourselves from ourselves? Laws change all the time, the basis might be one thing, but they often morph to the accepted view of the time. I got all the Asimov books in my living room, and I still come to that conclusion when it comes to man's "creations"...

Haha very "I Robot" suggestion. Of course, the first law is inviolable according to theory. I can easily see a sentient robot reasoning that the world could do without some criminal elements and take them out. Or even more people on a wider scale. As long as the base programming is right, maybe robots are a better judge of humans than we are of ourselves.

Ummm, Asimovs 3 laws, aren't really laws.
In case someone can't remember....

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

---Robotic arms kill. Indiscriminately. One of my colleagues had a chunk taken out of his shoulder by an arm he thought was on standby.
Then you have UAV's, which are a purposeful violation of this law.

2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

---There are many machines I work with which cannot take orders. They simply carry out there tasks with or without humans present.
Then there's UAV's which are supposed to be given kill orders.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

---Lol, tell that to the countless machines that have either driven clear off a ledge, managed to fall into a body of water, or forgotten where it's home position was and ripped itself out of the floor anchors.


If these were actually law... lock me up. I've either directly or inadvertently violated all three... many times.

reply to post by johnsky


More than a transistor. A transistor is simply an amplifier or switch. This operates a bit differently, allowing one amplifier to control multiple others.

I agree with your analogy. I can't make a transistor either, but I can buy them for a penny each. At that price, I can make a computer (Well, a simple one anyway). I can remember a time when a transistor was cost over a dollar each, if you could find a source for them. Now we have this new data-manipulation device that probably costs a few thousand dollars or more and can only be found in one lab. But the day could easily come when it, too, will be plentiful and cheap.

Don't misread the remarks about what the future holds... it's the joy of speculation, not the musings of scientists.

Oh, yes, and for everyone else on the three laws. Asimov just made those up off the top of his head. Science FICTION, heavy on the fiction. Johnsky's right on track there

TheRedneck