• Create Account

FREE SOFTWARE GIVEAWAY

We have 4 x Pro Licences (valued at $59 each) for 2d modular animation software Spriter to give away in this Thursday's GDNet Direct email newsletter. Read more in this forum topic or make sure you're signed up (from the right-hand sidebar on the homepage) and read Thursday's newsletter to get in the running! ### #Actualjbadams Posted 25 July 2013 - 12:22 AM I'm renting a computer for$60 a week, its a bargain, because I know what I can do with this beast.

My plan is a 32x32 pixel 1 bit vision cortex.

The idea, is you group the pixels that appear at the same time, if you allow enough room for every possible group you exponentially expand to impossible proportions, but I have a theory that eventually, grouping collections to singletons, you eventually contain it and it begins to shrink making it possible.

It will be gpu programming, I've had enough practice now to code anything in parallel.  Do nothing know nothing idiots argue with me, but I can code anything with
my video card

Feynman knew too, with a bit of practice one starts to think more parallel about ideas, it doesn't take long before one can even code something seemingly sequential like a
diamond fill even in parallel.

It's like the brain?

Well a collection of pixels at the same time is a coincidence in time, and if you store coincidences of near time you also collect time together as a single "idea" many things that happen at similar time become a single thing.

I have no idea if we use "temporal glue" like that to form our relations database upstairs, but its the best theory to date.

You also can take fuzzy data, or similar data, and say what its "most like" and that's the secret of getting it interactive (say I wanted to turn star wars into a video game, just by inserting the movie into it) maybe that's not possible, but it almost is, I can then flip motor bits and it'll bring up the fuzzily similar visual readout for the changed motor bits, that's how it can make games, that look like movies.

(and then maybe more people would at least be interested in it as a funny little side show game, you hide in the corner- that is in fact wholly remarkable, but people care little in that way.)

"pick the most similar screen, with the novel motor as a constraint."

The way it works is, it learns the most "successful groups" successful in as in arised the most often (just groups of pixels, I shit you not)  it'll collect together the pixels of a  little segment in time that arised most often, it must be a variable amount of time and a variable amount of space, to do it properly, it must "carve the space and time" to make the proper puppet out of it.

Jeff Hawkins blew my insignificant little mind, but its down to my own work now to finish it off.   numenta, his company has stopped educating the idea now, he's told us
the main ideas, and I guess it's down to us to nut out the final details, fair enough jeff.

once the first groups are made, then yes, you make groups of those groups, then groups of those, the only way this thing could ever fit into ram is eventually you run out
of groups to make, hence the 7 layers in our brain (so I read)  I figure all coincidences have been drawn and there's no more work to do, or its impossible to do further work
on the data.

I want "infinite store"  that's the main thing I'm going for. and that'll take the full power of both GTX's.

So I can say, I can fit anything 32x32 in motion into this little eye and it'll keep on remembering more and more.

* infinite store (well infinite for 32x32, thats the catch your brain isn't infinite, it can just store everything in the space provided)
* feedback POSSIBLE.  the problem with Jeff's version, is it has lossy feedback, we must get over this problem and i think it IS possible.
* inference POSSIBLE.  once one has fixed feedback, then inference is then screwed.  so inference and feedback must work in unison to make each other possible, inference is "give me similar old result from novel input"
* symantics (clever name for pixel group) should have varying time duration and space take up that triggers them to make them more closer to a word database triggered by sense data.

and they say us ai guys are getting nowhere!! We are actually nearly there.

After all this, what have we got?

A coincidence database that has no idea itself what it means inside it, except maybe it's trial and error linking emotions to it or something, I don't know.

Things I'm a bit iffy about, is connecting together polymorphic objects to a single word, and creating hierarchies of objects that don't appear together often, but we can
group them, there may be more to coincidence making than just what you see at similar time is the same thing.

STRAIGHT AWAY WHAT DO YOU GET

* movie games
* non variant response to differing perspectives (iding)
* it can turn a still into a motion picture. (oracling)
* it works on bits, so it can work on any sense imaginable

That's what you get straight out of coding it, what else it needs I'm not sure.

You see, it actually doesn't generalize ENOUGH, I think its problem is.

and because of that, it misses things, because it should have glued together things it didn't, screwing up further learning.

Jeff has an id product and an oracle product, its pretty cool.

so I couldn't be more excited about it.

: Removed unnecessary line breaks and did some basic grammar correction.

### #2rouncer

Posted 24 July 2013 - 02:12 PM

im renting a computer for $60 a week, its a bargain, cause i know what i can do with this beast. my plan is a 32x32 pixel 1 bit vision cortex. the idea, is you group the pixels that appear at the same time, if you allow enough room for every possible group you exponentially expand to impossible proportions, but i have a theory that eventually, grouping collections to singletons, you eventually contain it and it begins to shrink making it possible. it will be gpu programming, ive had enough practice now to code anything in parallel. do nothing know nothing idiots argue with me, but i can code anything with my video card. feynman knew too, with a bit of practice one starts to think more parallel about ideas, it doesnt take long before one can even code something seemingly sequential like a diamond fill even in parallel. its like the brain? well a collection of pixels at the same time is a coincidence in time, and if you store coincidences of near time you also collect time together as a single "idea" many things that happen at similar time become a single thing. i have no idea if we use "temporal glue" like that to form our relations database upstairs, but its the best theory to date. you also can take fuzzy data, or similar data, and say what its "most like" and thats the secret of getting it interactive (say i wanted to turn star wars into a video game, just by inserting the movie into it) maybe thats not possible, but it almost is, i can then flip motor bits and itll bring up the fuzzily similar visual readout for the changed motor bits, thats how it can make games, that look like movies. (and then maybe more people would at least be interested in it as a funny little side show game, you hide in the corner- that is in fact wholey remarkable, but people care little in that way.) "pick the most similar screen, with the novel motor as a constraint." the way it works is, it learns the most "successful groups" successful in as in arised the most often (just groups of pixels, i shit you not) itll collect together the pixels of a little segment in time that arised most often, it must be a variable amount of time and a variable amount of space, to do it properly, it must "carve the space and time" to make the proper puppet out of it. jeff hawkins blew my insignificant little mind, but its down to my own work now to finish it off. numenta, his company has stopped educating the idea now, hes told us the main ideas, and i guess its down to us to nut out the final details, fair enough jeff. once the first groups are made, then yes, you make groups of those groups, then groups of those, the only way this thing could ever fit into ram is eventually you run out of groups to make, hence the 7 layers in our brain (so i read) i figure all coincidences have been drawn and theres no more work to do, or its impossible to do further work on the data. i want "infinite store" thats the main thing im going for. and thatll take the full power of both GTX's. so i can say, i can fit anything 32x32 in motion into this little eye and itll keep on remembering more and more. * infinite store (well infinite for 32x32, thats the catch your brain isnt infinite, it can just store everything in the space provided) * feedback POSSIBLE. the problem with jeff's version, is it has lossy feedback, we must get over this problem and i think it IS possible. * inference POSSIBLE. once one has fixed feedback, then inference is then screwed. so inference and feedback must work in unison to make each other possible, inference is "give me similar old result from novel input" * symantics (clever name for pixel group) should have varying time duration and space take up that triggers them to make them more closer to a word database triggered by sense data. and they say us ai guys are getting nowhere!! we are actually nearly there. after all this, what have we got? a coincidence database that has no idea itself what it means inside it, except maybe its trial and error linking emotions to it or something, i dont know. things im a bit iffy about, is connecting together poly morphic objects to a single word, and creating heirarchies of objects that dont appear together often, but we can group them, there may be more to coincidence making than just what you see at similar time is the same thing. STRAIGHT AWAY WHAT DO YOU GET * movie games * non varient response to differing perspectives (iding) * it can turn a still into a motion picture. (oracling) * it works on bits, so it can work on any sense imaginable * multisense linkage thats what you get straight out of coding it, what else it needs im not sure. you see, it actually doesnt generalize ENOUGH, i think its problem is. and because of that, it misses things, because it should have glued together things it didnt, screwing up further learning. jeff has an id product and an oracle product, its pretty cool. so i couldnt be more excited about it. ### #1rouncer Posted 24 July 2013 - 01:40 PM im renting a computer for$60 a week, its a bargain, cause
i know what i can do with this beast.

my plan is a 32x32 pixel 1 bit vision cortex.

the idea, is you group the pixels that appear at the
same time,  if you allow enough room for every possible
group you exponentially expand to impossible proportions,
but i have a theory that eventually, grouping collections
to singletons, you eventually contain it and it begins
to shrink making it possible.

it will be gpu programming, ive had enough practice now
to code anything in parallel.  do nothing know nothing
idiots argue with me, but i can code anything with
my video card.

feynman knew too, with a bit of practice one starts to
think more parallel about ideas, it doesnt take long before
one can even code something seemingly sequential like a
diamond fill even in parallel.

its like the brain?

well a collection of pixels at the same time is at
coincidence in time, and if you store coincidences of near
time you also collect time together as a single "idea"
maing things that happen at similar time become a single
thing.

i have no idea if we use "temporal glue" like that to
form our relations database upstairs, but its the best
theory to date.

you also can take fuzzy data, or similar data, and say
what its "most like" and thats the secret of getting it
interactive (say i wanted to turn star wars into a video
game, just by inserting the movie into it) maybe thats not
possible, but it almost is, i can then flip motor bits and
itll bring up the fuzzily similar visual readout for the
changed motor bits, thats how it can make games, that look
like movies.

(and then maybe more people would at least be interested
in it as a funny little side show game, you hide in the
corner- that is in fact wholey remarkable, but people care
little in that way.)

"pick the most similar screen, with the novel motor as a
constraint."

the way it works is, it learns the most "successful groups"
successful in as in arised the most often (just groups
of pixels, i shit you not)  itll collect together the
pixels of a little segment in time that arised most often,
it must be a variable amount of time and a variable amount
of space, to do it properly, it must "carve the space and
time" to make the proper puppet out of it.

jeff hawkins blew my insignificant little mind, but its
down to my own work now to finish it off.   numenta, his
company has stopped educating the idea now, hes told us
the main ideas, and i guess its down to us to nut out the
final details, fair enough jeff.

once the first groups are made, then yes, you make groups
of those groups, then groups of those, the only way this
thing could ever fit into ram is eventually you run out
of groups to make, hence the 7 layers in our brain (so i
read)  i figure all coincidences have been drawn and theres
no more work to do, or its impossible to do further work
on the data.

i want "infinite store"  thats the main thing im going for.
and thatll take the full power of both GTX's.

so i can say, i can fit anything 32x32 in motion into this
little eye and itll keep on remembering more and more.

* infinite store (well infinite for 32x32, thats the catch
your brain isnt infinite, it can just store everything in
the space provided)
* feedback POSSIBLE.  the problem with jeff's version, is
it has lossy feedback, we must get over this problem and
i think it IS possible.
* inference POSSIBLE.  once one has fixed feedback, then
inference is then screwed.  so inference and feedback must
work in unison to make each other possible, inference is
"give me similar old result from novel input"
* symantics (clever name for pixel group) should have
varying time duration and space take up that triggers them
to make them more closer to a word database triggered by
sense data.

and they say us ai guys are getting nowhere!! we are
actually nearly there.

after all this, what have we got?

a coincidence database that has no idea itself what it
means inside it, except maybe its trial and error
linking emotions to it or something, i dont know.

things im a bit iffy about, is connecting together poly
morphic objects to a single word, and creating heirarchies
of objects that dont appear together often, but we can
group them, there may be more to coincidence making than
just what you see at similar time is the same thing.

STRAIGHT AWAY WHAT DO YOU GET

* movie games
* non varient response to differing perspectives (iding)
* it can turn a still into a motion picture. (oracling)
* it works on bits, so it can work on any sense imaginable

thats what you get straight out of coding it, what else
it needs im not sure.

you see, it actually doesnt generalize ENOUGH, i think
its problem is.

and because of that, it misses things, because it should
have glued together things it didnt, screwing up further
learning.

jeff has an id product and an oracle product, its pretty cool.

so i couldnt be more excited about it.

PARTNERS