A million ARM cores to host brain simulator - EETimes

[Olivon]

Up to a million ARM processor cores are going to be linked together to simulate the workings of the human brain in a research project in the U.K.

The chips, designed at Manchester University and manufactured in Taiwan, form the building blocks for a massively parallel computer called SpiNNaker (Spiking Neural Network architecture).

SpiNNaker is a joint project between the universities of Manchester, Southampton, Cambridge and Sheffield and has been funded with a £5 million (about $8 million) government grant. Professor Steve Furber of the University of Manchester has been studying brain function and architecture for several years, but is also well known as one of the co-designers of the Acorn RISC Machine, a microprocessor that is the forerunner of today's ARM processor cores.

There are about 100 billion neurons with 1,000 trillion connections in the human brain. Even a machine with one million of the specialized ARM chips developed at Manchester would only allow modeling of about 1 percent of the human brain, the researchers said.

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-n...rain-simulator

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-n...w?pageNumber=0

[LiquidFiction]

99% more to go until the Singularity Event.

[xellsyuh]

evangelion? it starts...

[Splave]

wprime 1024

[Vardant]

Skynet, are you there?

[Origin_Unknown]

will it BOINC

[Serra]

I wonder how much they plan to simulate and what they plan on learning, exactly.

It was just 2 years ago that scientists using BlueGene-L were only able to simulate a few particular functions of a mouse brain... at 1/10 speed... for a short time. And even they agreed it was not at all a real model, just a possible model of some particular areas.

So obviously there's more to the story than seems to have been reported, but then mentioning that they only plan on modeling small parts of it or looking at specific functions with a huge list of caveats and how it's in a small fraction of real-time wouldn't make such a splashy article I guess.

[[XC] Oj101]

Am I the only one excited by the possibility of the singularity happenning in my lifetime (I'm 21)? So they'll be able to simulate 1% of the human brain, or one tenth of the alleged 10% that we use? It's scary how technology has progressed over the last fifty years. It's quite something to think about how we've progressed over the last decade alone. Ten years ago i was running my cranky old Celeron 633 @ 950MHz, now I have six times as many cores running at a greater efficiency at four times the speed. Where will this end? Will he hit natural limitations before the singularity? Will we be the cause of our own downfall before such time? The future is both scary and exciting, and I look forward to witnessing it first hand.

[Cooper]

Am I the only one excited by the possibility of the singularity happenning in my lifetime (I'm 21)? So they'll be able to simulate 1% of the human brain, or one tenth of the alleged 10% that we use? It's scary how technology has progressed over the last fifty years. It's quite something to think about how we've progressed over the last decade alone. Ten years ago i was running my cranky old Celeron 633 @ 950MHz, now I have six times as many cores running at a greater efficiency at four times the speed. Where will this end? Will he hit natural limitations before the singularity? Will we be the cause of our own downfall before such time? The future is both scary and exciting, and I look forward to witnessing it first hand.

I'd say you "dream" too much. Singularity has nothing to do with brain emulation.
Such machine may be used to outsource more complex tasks from human beings in future.

[[XC] Oj101]

Yes I do dream, and why not? Without dreams, we can kiss innovation goodbye.

Anyway, while singularity may not be the emulation of the human brain, emulation can play a role. The brain is an organ, and as such will die like any other organ. If we can already emulate most organs (kidney dialysis machine, iron lung, pace maker, etc), adding emulation of the majority of the brain's functions (motor control, memory - almost everything other than thought and what's responsible for the personality) we can greatly increase the maximum lifespan of humans. Is that not ultimately a great part of the singularity?

[Mech0z]

Yes I do dream, and why not? Without dreams, we can kiss innovation goodbye.

Anyway, while singularity may not be the emulation of the human brain, emulation can play a role. The brain is an organ, and as such will die like any other organ. If we can already emulate most organs (kidney dialysis machine, iron lung, pace maker, etc), adding emulation of the majority of the brain's functions (motor control, memory - almost everything other than thought and what's responsible for the personality) we can greatly increase the maximum lifespan of humans. Is that not ultimately a great part of the singularity?

And where do we put all these humans(That would have died normally) ? Unless we optimize all the earth and somehow get rid of all corrupt goverments and money for that matter then we cannot sustane being more people, people are too greedy as it is now.

[crash5s]

And where do we put all these humans(That would have died normally) ? Unless we optimize all the earth and somehow get rid of all corrupt goverments and money for that matter then we cannot sustane being more people, people are too greedy as it is now.

We go to Mars!

[zalbard]

Even if we could model 1% it'd just operate 10-100 times slower, no big deal. I believe the biggest challenge is programming, not horsepower.
Either way, this is one really exciting project. Let's check back in a year and see if they make any progress.

[trn]

Watch when.... 1 Million Arm cores are linked together to simulate a brain... and the computer just wants to sit around on its ass and drink beer and watch TV; so much for artificial intelligence

[LiquidFiction]

I'd say you "dream" too much. Singularity has nothing to do with brain emulation.
Such machine may be used to outsource more complex tasks from human beings in future.

The singularity tells of machines and computers which have equal intelligence to the human brain.... Which is what a brain simulation would do. People who believed in going to the moon in the 50s were called dreamers as well. Alexander The Great was called a dreamer when he was a young boy. You get my point?

[m^2]

Skynet, are you there?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...hp?1229-SKYNET

[Cooper]

The singularity tells of machines and computers which have equal intelligence to the human brain.... Which is what a brain simulation would do. People who believed in going to the moon in the 50s were called dreamers as well. Alexander The Great was called a dreamer when he was a young boy. You get my point?

People dreamed about going to the moon forever. And Alexander was not the 1st nor last nor world-best. First utilized technologies developed through-out the 1st and 2nd WW which in place was an outcome of centuries of evolution. And Alexander the Great was not also laying on his couch until he though "I want to conquer the world". He was taught and trained since early childhood cos he was lucky enough to be born in royal family.
Without proper knowledge and understanding and ability to implement it on various levels your right-brained dreams will stay dreams. Get my point ?
And the singularity you talk about is already reached on some levels but human being will always remain smarter and more creative then any machine. It's simply not financially beneficial to emulate human in his entirety. Just some tasks to do the job right. Besides as what mentioned here it's more about the software then the hardware. Same goes with people. Everyone's brain is capable of many things but not many actually has the will or access to advance it.

[XSAlliN]

We humans, are to fragile as organic beings - so this is the future, at least part of it.... the next part would involve billions of cores at the size of a human head.

[LiquidFiction]

People dreamed about going to the moon forever. And Alexander was not the 1st nor last nor world-best. First utilized technologies developed through-out the 1st and 2nd WW which in place was an outcome of centuries of evolution. And Alexander the Great was not also laying on his couch until he though "I want to conquer the world". He was taught and trained since early childhood cos he was lucky enough to be born in royal family.
Without proper knowledge and understanding and ability to implement it on various levels your right-brained dreams will stay dreams. Get my point ?
And the singularity you talk about is already reached on some levels but human being will always remain smarter and more creative then any machine. It's simply not financially beneficial to emulate human in his entirety. Just some tasks to do the job right. Besides as what mentioned here it's more about the software then the hardware. Same goes with people. Everyone's brain is capable of many things but not many actually has the will or access to advance it.

So you must be a psychic? As you somehow have reached into the far future and seen that machines never reach the complexity of the human brain. That is quite impressive. You should open up one of those psychic hotlines you could profit from that ya know. Bottom line is this. Only time can tell. I do believe that if we are not careful and mindful of how technology advances that one day machines and computers can become as a complex as the human brain. It matters less if it is profitable or not. It wasn't financially beneficial for the emirates to build the Burj Khalifa. But they did it anyways. Our species is the most diverse out of any on this planet. And our plethora of philosophy's and beliefs is far too broad for you to assume no group of peoples would want to emulate the human brain. As a matter of fact emulating the human brain might not be a bad idea. As in a medical science perspective it could truly benefit from being able to observe how neurological diseases in the brain progress and in turn how to prevent or cure them.

As for Alexander The Great yes he was born into royalty and yes he was tutored by Aristotle. But the point i was trying to prove was that he dreamed of becoming a military general. And he dreamed of conquering nations even when people told him it could not be done. Alexander The Great was not the first conqueror nor was he the last. But he was indeed the greatest of them all. Undefeated by his enemy's. And only by the fatigue and exhaustion of his men did he have to turn back. He could of conquered even more territory. I think what you lack is inspiration.

[hyc]

Alexander The Great was not the first conqueror nor was he the last. But he was indeed the greatest of them all. Undefeated by his enemy's. And only by the fatigue and exhaustion of his men did he have to turn back. He could of conquered even more territory.

If he drove his men to exhaustion, then he was ready to be defeated. Being a leader is about more than yelling "attack" - you have to know the limits of your supply lines, soldiers, etc. If he turned back, it wasn't because he thought "oh, I could conquer some more but we don't feel like it" - it's because he knew he could not win any further. So no, he could *not* have conquered even more territory.

[hyc]

As for emulating a brain - not at this stage.

There are a huge number of challenges to overcome to create a significant AI. Of course there's the entire problem of computing interesting responses to given inputs. Even before that, you need a meaningful way to convert real world inputs into processable data. We have five senses for converting stimuli from the real world into something our brains can analyze. None of these senses are simple by any definition. Once you've got that covered, all you have is a system that reacts to the external world. To create something really significant, you need something that synthesizes its own data, independent of the external sensory inputs. Something that acts on the world, instead of simply reacting to it. In some respect I don't think 1 million CPU cores is necessary, and in others I think it's far from enough. Simplify the inputs enough, and you need less processors. It's all about finding ways to program a system to have its own creative thoughts...

[Tuvok-LuR-]

sounds like an army of ARM

[XSAlliN]

If he drove his men to exhaustion, then he was ready to be defeated. Being a leader is about more than yelling "attack" - you have to know the limits of your supply lines, soldiers, etc. If he turned back, it wasn't because he thought "oh, I could conquer some more but we don't feel like it" - it's because he knew he could not win any further. So no, he could *not* have conquered even more territory.

Sure, being a leader is about being all-knowing (God-like) - as in knowing the outcome of any action you make...

I wasn't there and nobody know for sure - how much of his history is true... but what LiquidFiction mentioned, is the logical deduction based on current history materials related to that time. Being humans - not Gods, all great leaders made mistakes... and none of them concurred territories by being all-knowing beings - they had some knowledge, they also used scouts to examine the terrain, from which they based their future actions but they couldn't predict the future conditions, the weather, diseases or allies who'd become backstabbers... Even more modern generals like those from WWII made similar mistakes and that regarding closer distances and more modern means of travel (couldn't predict the winter and the conditions at that certain time - for example).

Being a good leader is all about being more capable in terms of leadership, but it's also known that most great leaders develop a weakens - as in "egomania" which can lead to bad judgement - and ironically, sometimes that leads to almost impossible victories but can also lead to defeat.

[LiquidFiction]

If he drove his men to exhaustion, then he was ready to be defeated. Being a leader is about more than yelling "attack" - you have to know the limits of your supply lines, soldiers, etc. If he turned back, it wasn't because he thought "oh, I could conquer some more but we don't feel like it" - it's because he knew he could not win any further. So no, he could *not* have conquered even more territory.

Well as a military leader and conqueror yourself im sure what you say is correct. I mean i only wish i could learn from such a great accomplished military genius like yourself. His men could not fight any longer. But Alexander The Great had much fight left in him. That is what i was trying to say.

[LiquidFiction]

Sure, being a leader is about being all-knowing (God-like) - as in knowing the outcome of any action you make...

I wasn't there and nobody know for sure - how much of his history is true... but what LiquidFiction mentioned, is the logical deduction based on current history materials related to that time. Being humans - not Gods, all great leaders made mistakes... and none of them concurred territories by being all-knowing beings - they had some knowledge, they also used scouts to examine the terrain, from which they based their future actions but they couldn't predict the future conditions, the weather, diseases or allies who'd become backstabbers... Even more modern generals like those from WWII made similar mistakes and that regarding closer distances and more modern means of travel (couldn't predict the winter and the conditions at that certain time - for example).

Being a good leader is all about being more capable in terms of leadership, but it's also known that most great leaders develop a weakens - as in "egomania" which can lead to bad judgement - and ironically, sometimes that leads to almost impossible victories but can also lead to defeat.

That is a good point. Alexanders greatest mistake could of easily been not allowing his men to rest more. And not allowing his men to march at a less brutal pace. If we would of allowed his men to rest more and to lesson the extreme pace at which they were marching his men could of been well prepared for another series of battles. But in truth all of the variables are too much to count. So many things could of happened. In the end Alexander The Great was just a man, but his achievements were much more than that, his achievements have never been repeated since and maybe never will. And the fact that we are talking about him in a forum about computers is a testament to the mans amazing legacy

I originally brought up his name to make a point about dreamers.