Sign in to follow this  
fr0st2k

Theory - ultimate AI, at atomic level

Recommended Posts

fr0st2k    138
I've had this thought for years now. I've discussed it with friends, but they didnt have much interest, so I thought i'd bring it here.

People have tried very hard to create AI, but from a top down approach. Why not start from a bottom up? At the VERY bottom; atoms.

We know how atoms interact. We know how electrons spin and swap around in atoms. We know chemical formulas, and how a hydrogen atom interacts with two oxygen atoms to form H20. We also know velocity of atoms, how speed affects friction and heat, etc. All the information for a complex computer program is there.

Has anyone tried programming this in 3d space?

If someone programs all the knowledge we have of atoms into a computer program, not only will it serve as an amazing repository for scientific information (fact checking, etc), but if done correctly, it will become a programmable petri dish of molecules.

Can you imagine?

The program becomes freeware, and everyone on the planet downloads it like google earth. You are given a pointer that transforms into a spraycan. You select what element you want to spray, the amount, and the velocity. You create 3d spheres, adjust hardness and then stick in a heat. You can adjust wind speeds to simulate velocity.

Some group develops dirt, another figures out water. a few years down the road, someone develops an atmosphere. Years later, we have a simulation of earth, built with molecules of dirt, water, air, o2, etc.

Then computers get to the point that they can process all this at 1million times speed, so that every second in our world is 1million seconds in theirs. We do nothing but set up the conditions of earth and watch as life blossoms by itself. Eventually creatures form, then intelligence. We then begin to talk to them through the computer screen. We wait for them to advance 1000 years past us. Then a million years, and steal their technology.

Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SriLumpa    198
[quote name='fr0st2k' timestamp='1313086839' post='4847808']
Why not?
[/quote]

Well, because to simulate a few atoms, you need a computer that is a big lot of atoms.
If you manage, with a given device, to simulate much more atoms than this device contains, you've won. Until you find how to do that, you will never be able to simulate anything close to useful with a computer that could fit on the Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adaline    710
Hello :)

[quote name='fr0st2k' timestamp='1313086839' post='4847808']
People have tried very hard to create AI, but from a top down approach. Why not start from a bottom up? At the VERY bottom; atoms.
[/quote]

Do you know '[b]connectionism[/b]' ? In this theory, 'atoms' are [b]neurons[/b], relationship between them is modelled with [b]connections[/b].
This theory is implemented thanks to [b]neural networks[/b].

Maybe you can have a look at this theory ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
szecs    2990
[quote name='SriLumpa' timestamp='1313087566' post='4847815']
[quote name='fr0st2k' timestamp='1313086839' post='4847808']
Why not?
[/quote]
If you manage, with a given device, to simulate much more atoms than this device contains, you've won.
[/quote]

There's a principle ins science:
Nothing can make a perfect model of itself. To model Earth, you'd need a much bigger computer that Earth itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SriLumpa    198
[quote name='szecs' timestamp='1313090933' post='4847852']
There's a principle ins science:
Nothing can make a perfect model of itself. To model Earth, you'd need a much bigger computer that Earth itself.
[/quote]

Yes that was my point :) I find it obvious, but I'd love to see attempts at "scientifically" proving this, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adaline    710
Just to make sure I don't lead to misunderstanding concerning the connectionist approach :
The [i]blue brain [/i]simulate 2 mm^3 of cortex (with a very high accurate neural model) , and it's a supercomputer :(

As far as I know, neural nets aren't used in game AI : the learning process can be very very long, i think the learning process can't be integrated in games for that reason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fr0st2k    138
[quote name='szecs' timestamp='1313090933' post='4847852']
[quote name='SriLumpa' timestamp='1313087566' post='4847815']
[quote name='fr0st2k' timestamp='1313086839' post='4847808']
Why not?
[/quote]
If you manage, with a given device, to simulate much more atoms than this device contains, you've won.
[/quote]

There's a principle ins science:
Nothing can make a perfect model of itself. To model Earth, you'd need a much bigger computer that Earth itself.
[/quote]

How is this true when we have games that are on massive scales? Look at world of warcraft. I'd imagine you'd need a super processor to manage millions of atoms, at the same time..which at this point in time is impossible. However, there is no reason you couldnt make 1500 water molecules and attempt to make a bead of water.

Also, no one is saying we should model earth. That is not the theory im presenting...and im not so sure why youre dwelling on it. The idea is to create a program that follows scientific law on the atomic level, thus giving the program the capability of producing unlimited results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
szecs    2990
[quote name='fr0st2k' timestamp='1313093349' post='4847872']
[quote name='szecs' timestamp='1313090933' post='4847852']
[quote name='SriLumpa' timestamp='1313087566' post='4847815']
[quote name='fr0st2k' timestamp='1313086839' post='4847808']
Why not?
[/quote]
If you manage, with a given device, to simulate much more atoms than this device contains, you've won.
[/quote]

There's a principle ins science:
Nothing can make a perfect model of itself. To model Earth, you'd need a much bigger computer that Earth itself.
[/quote]

How is this true when we have games that are on massive scales? Look at world of warcraft. I'd imagine you'd need a super processor to manage millions of atoms, at the same time..which at this point in time is impossible. However, there is no reason you couldnt make 1500 water molecules and attempt to make a bead of water.

Also, no one is saying we should model earth. That is not the theory im presenting...and im not so sure why youre dwelling on it. The idea is to create a program that follows scientific law on the atomic level, thus giving the program the capability of producing unlimited results.
[/quote]

You are not modelling every atom in WOW....

And I'm not dwelling on anything....
And you are not "presenting" a theory here. You just have an idea. 1 million atoms is pretty much nothing. A 1000x1000x1000 cube is 1 billion.....
Do you have any idea how many atoms there are in a single neuron?
We couldn't simulate even one neuron at atomic scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
szecs    2990
[quote name='SriLumpa' timestamp='1313093055' post='4847868']
[quote name='szecs' timestamp='1313090933' post='4847852']
There's a principle ins science:
Nothing can make a perfect model of itself. To model Earth, you'd need a much bigger computer that Earth itself.
[/quote]

Yes that was my point :) I find it obvious, but I'd love to see attempts at "scientifically" proving this, though.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure it's proven. I tried to look for it, I remembered a Wiki page about it, but I couldn't find it. (If it needs to be proven at all. The pigeon-hole principle doesn't have to be proven it's so simple. Yet, a lot of idiots come up with an ultimate compressing algorithm *sigh*)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fr0st2k    138
[quote name='szecs' timestamp='1313093593' post='4847880']
[quote name='fr0st2k' timestamp='1313093349' post='4847872']
[quote name='szecs' timestamp='1313090933' post='4847852']
[quote name='SriLumpa' timestamp='1313087566' post='4847815']
[quote name='fr0st2k' timestamp='1313086839' post='4847808']
Why not?
[/quote]
If you manage, with a given device, to simulate much more atoms than this device contains, you've won.
[/quote]

There's a principle ins science:
Nothing can make a perfect model of itself. To model Earth, you'd need a much bigger computer that Earth itself.
[/quote]

How is this true when we have games that are on massive scales? Look at world of warcraft. I'd imagine you'd need a super processor to manage millions of atoms, at the same time..which at this point in time is impossible. However, there is no reason you couldnt make 1500 water molecules and attempt to make a bead of water.

Also, no one is saying we should model earth. That is not the theory im presenting...and im not so sure why youre dwelling on it. The idea is to create a program that follows scientific law on the atomic level, thus giving the program the capability of producing unlimited results.
[/quote]

You are not modelling every atom in WOW....

And I'm not dwelling on anything....
And you are not "presenting" a theory here. You just have an idea.
[/quote]


it was a topic meant for discussion. to theorize on the subject.

I realize modeling WoW and the earth are 2 completely different things, yet you still dwell on it, whether you admit it or not.

You do not have to model every atom. You can choose to run the physics on a different computer, and render only specific molecules if you choose to. You can also choose not to render it at all.

Stop dwelling on the modeling of earth and look at the concept. you have yet to comment on that at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adaline    710
[quote]
And you are not "presenting" a theory here. You just have an idea.
[/quote]

Totally agree
Do you really know the whole state of the art in AI ? Who could pretend this anyway ?
You just 're-invent' the idea that governs connectionnism, (quite intuitive idea nowadays)

Please just stay modest :) . really no offense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
szecs    2990
[quote name='fr0st2k' timestamp='1313093954' post='4847887']
[quote name='szecs' timestamp='1313093593' post='4847880']
[quote name='fr0st2k' timestamp='1313093349' post='4847872']
[quote name='szecs' timestamp='1313090933' post='4847852']
[quote name='SriLumpa' timestamp='1313087566' post='4847815']
[quote name='fr0st2k' timestamp='1313086839' post='4847808']
Why not?
[/quote]
If you manage, with a given device, to simulate much more atoms than this device contains, you've won.
[/quote]

There's a principle ins science:
Nothing can make a perfect model of itself. To model Earth, you'd need a much bigger computer that Earth itself.
[/quote]

How is this true when we have games that are on massive scales? Look at world of warcraft. I'd imagine you'd need a super processor to manage millions of atoms, at the same time..which at this point in time is impossible. However, there is no reason you couldnt make 1500 water molecules and attempt to make a bead of water.

Also, no one is saying we should model earth. That is not the theory im presenting...and im not so sure why youre dwelling on it. The idea is to create a program that follows scientific law on the atomic level, thus giving the program the capability of producing unlimited results.
[/quote]

You are not modelling every atom in WOW....

And I'm not dwelling on anything....
And you are not "presenting" a theory here. You just have an idea.
[/quote]


it was a topic meant for discussion. to theorize on the subject.

I realize modeling WoW and the earth are 2 completely different things, yet you still dwell on it, whether you admit it or not.

You do not have to model every atom. You can choose to run the physics on a different computer, and render only specific molecules if you choose to. You can also choose not to render it at all.

Stop dwelling on the modeling of earth and look at the concept. you have yet to comment on that at all.


[/quote]

My opinion about the concept:
It's the most straightforward concept and a quite useless concept by itself. Just my comment.

(BTW, what does rendering has to do with the problem? Do you think rendering is the most problematic thing? Well, it's not...)

Sorry for being harsh, but I have a feeling that this will turn into an "all scientists and the science as we know it is wrong" thread pretty soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adaline    710
[quote]
Do you have any idea how many atoms there are in a single neuron?
[/quote]

Thank you, do you even know what 'atom' means ? An indivisible entity that it. That's a model
By the way, I can't figure out the relationship between (physics) atom , and intelligence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SriLumpa    198
[quote name='fr0st2k' timestamp='1313093954' post='4847887']
You do not have to model every atom. You can choose to run the physics on a different computer, and render only specific molecules if you choose to. You can also choose not to render it at all.

Stop dwelling on the modeling of earth and look at the concept. you have yet to comment on that at all.
[/quote]

You seem to confuse rendering and simulating. The problem with Earth is not the size only, it's the complexity of what you seem to suggest. When you said "atom", if you really meant simulating the currently known physics laws for every atom, then you could hardly simulate even just your room with all the supercomputers on earth !

By the way, are we talking about AI or physics ? or maybe both (even more ambitious, at today's knowledge level).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D_Tr    362
In a second year lab in the Chemical Engineering department, one day we ran a molecular simulation program. It simulated 1000 molecules and needed a couple of minutes or so to simulate some picoseconds of molecular motion. Molecular simulations like this are often used in science for various purposes (see for example Folding@Home), but the number of molecules modelled are very few, far fewer than those contained even in a human cell. Molecular simulation often used to calculate properties of pure substances or of mixtures. So the type of program you are talking about exists and is also widely used. About the A.I. on a molecular level, it is simply impossible with today's processing power. The most ambitious project I have heard of is the [url="http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/"]Blue Brain[/url] project where a supercomputer is used to simulate a slice of mammalian brain, but the simulation is not done on the atomic level. They reconstructed a slice of 10,000 neurons of a real rat brain and simulated it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SriLumpa    198
[quote name='Adaline' timestamp='1313094449' post='4847894']
Thank you, do you even know what 'atom' means ? An indivisible entity that it. That's a model
By the way, I can't figure out the relationship between (physics) atom , and intelligence
[/quote]
I think the OP really meant "atom" in the physical sense, from his first post.
But I can't see any (reasonably close) relationship with intelligence either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fr0st2k    138
[quote name='Adaline' timestamp='1313094449' post='4847894']
[quote]
Do you have any idea how many atoms there are in a single neuron?
[/quote]

Thank you, do you even know what 'atom' means ? An indivisible entity that it. That's a model
By the way, I can't figure out the relationship between (physics) atom , and intelligence
[/quote]

the amount of atoms is irrelevant to this topic. As is the prospect of programming the atom itself as if its something complex. It only needs to follow the rules of an atom. Its the same as creating 1000 AI robots on the screen at 1 time. They all have specific rules to follow. An atom itself does not think, its rules can easily be written.

then 2 atoms hit each other...their ai interacts, and you have the program. This is with 2 atoms..which according to your law, requires a very tiny pc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
japro    887
Scientific simulations try to do this every day. Molecule and particle level simulations are actually pretty common. The problem is that even rather simple systems like a few million electrons in an accelerator take significant computing power and the simulations are far from real time. There are also higher level simulations of for example the whole heart and its neurons including an approximation of the human body that allow simulations of electrocardiography etc.
"Simulating the world" already is a significant part of science and a lot of bright minds are working on pushing the boundaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fr0st2k    138
[quote name='D_Tr' timestamp='1313094844' post='4847900']
In a second year lab in the Chemical Engineering department, one day we ran a molecular simulation program. It simulated 1000 molecules and needed a couple of minutes or so to simulate some picoseconds of molecular motion. Molecular simulations like this are often used in science for various purposes (see for example Folding@Home), but the number of molecules modelled are very few, far fewer than those contained even in a human cell. Molecular simulation often used to calculate properties of pure substances or of mixtures. So the type of program you are talking about exists and is also widely used. About the A.I. on a molecular level, it is simply impossible with today's processing power. The most ambitious project I have heard of is the [url="http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/"]Blue Brain[/url] project where a supercomputer is used to simulate a slice of mammalian brain, but the simulation is not done on the atomic level. They reconstructed a slice of 10,000 neurons of a real rat brain and simulated it.
[/quote]

thank you for the first reasonable reply. I suppose your post alone helps prove the 3 other posters wrong, and I wish I was more aware of systems like this.

I will definitely look into the blue brain program, as it sounds extremely interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
szecs    2990
[quote name='Adaline' timestamp='1313094449' post='4847894']
[quote]
Do you have any idea how many atoms there are in a single neuron?
[/quote]

Thank you, do you even know what 'atom' means ? An indivisible entity that it. That's a model
By the way, I can't figure out the relationship between (physics) atom , and intelligence
[/quote]

Um... I'm not sure who you're addressing here.

Anyhoo, I was thinking about this a lot lately. More precisely, I was reading an "article" about alien lifeforms, and lifeforms that are not based on electromagnetism as ours (chemistry), but on gravity, or strong force or weak force. Could a whole galaxy become "intelligent"? What does it mean anyway? The best definition I can think of is the ability to manipulate the environment in "unusual" ways (what the fuck "unusual" means?). At least we could detect that. But how can a galaxy manipulate the environment in an unusual way, yet, obeying the laws of physics?

Sometimes I feel that being "intelligent" and this whole "soul" stuff is about defying these laws in a way. Free will seems to be defiyng the laws of physics. But that can simply be an illusion, because according to the principle I mentioned earlier, the brain cannot model itself accurately.

random rambling is over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adaline    710
[quote name='szecs' timestamp='1313095245' post='4847910']
[quote name='Adaline' timestamp='1313094449' post='4847894']
[quote]
Do you have any idea how many atoms there are in a single neuron?
[/quote]

Thank you, do you even know what 'atom' means ? An indivisible entity that it. That's a model
By the way, I can't figure out the relationship between (physics) atom , and intelligence
[/quote]

Um... I'm not sure who you're addressing here.

Anyhoo, I was thinking about this a lot lately. More precisely, I was reading an "article" about alien lifeforms, and lifeforms that are not based on electromagnetism as ours (chemistry), but on gravity, or strong force or weak force. Could a whole galaxy become "intelligent"? What does it mean anyway? The best definition I can think of is the ability to manipulate the environment in "unusual" ways (what the fuck "unusual" means?). At least we could detect that. But how can a galaxy manipulate the environment in an unusual way, yet, obeying the laws of physics?

Sometimes I feel that being "intelligent" and this whole "soul" stuff is about defying these laws in a way. Free will seems to be defiyng the laws of physics. But that can simply be an illusion, because according to the principle I mentioned earlier, the brain cannot model itself accurately.

random rambling is over.
[/quote]

Excuse me, i was mistaken about who answers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SriLumpa    198
[quote name='fr0st2k' timestamp='1313094966' post='4847905']
the amount of atoms is irrelevant to this topic.
[/quote]
Sorry to insist but it is, you have to realize that. Even if you don't care about what happens inside an atom, each atom interacts with every single other atom.

The answers that you seem to like are very concrete examples telling you precisely, that simulating very tiny systems, even with simplified rules, is already very costly.
So yes, you can simulate 2 atoms easily on your PC, but extending that to anything useful is impossible. The right direction to go is to simplify rules (for example: not simulate at atom level).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
szecs    2990
[quote name='SriLumpa' timestamp='1313096238' post='4847917']
[quote name='fr0st2k' timestamp='1313094966' post='4847905']
the amount of atoms is irrelevant to this topic.
[/quote]
Sorry to insist but it is, you have to realize that. Even if you don't care about what happens inside an atom, each atom interacts with every single other atom.

The answers that you seem to like are very concrete examples telling you precisely, that simulating very tiny systems, even with simplified rules, is already very costly.
So yes, you can simulate 2 atoms easily on your PC, but extending that to anything useful is impossible. The right direction to go is to simplify rules (for example: not simulate at atom level).
[/quote]

Um, maybe just being wordy here, but in reality, you make rules more complex, more specific, you handle corner cases etc. Simplification here means accepting simpler and less accurate results.

The idea in the OP is simple, and works (as it works in the universe), but simulating it on computer in the same way as it works in real life is next to meaningless. Even Deep Thought had to design the whole Earth and run it for million years just to came of with the ultimate question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ApochPiQ    23064
Your premise is fundamentally flawed.

First of all, atoms are not the most basic level on which a simulation would have to run. You should look into [i]particle physics[/i] and [i]quantum mechanics[/i] if you are interested in more about this. There are actually many layers below the atom itself, and we don't even have good theories about what is truly "basic" in the sense of indivisible concepts.

Secondly, we don't know nearly enough about mechanics on even an atomic level to fully simulate things like you describe, even in principle. It isn't just a matter of computer power - the problem is that we don't know the equations that govern all that stuff to begin with. Anything we can do is going to be an approximation at best, and the larger scales we try to simulate, the lower the chances that it will even vaguely resemble the "real" physical world.

Finally, even if we did know the precise details of how everything works, we could never simulate it faster than real time. The argument here is simple: suppose we find a way to simulate 1 atom (or whatever) using exactly 1 other atom. This is probably impossible; it would likely take many more than 1 atom to simulate just 1 target atom. But in a theoretically ideal world, say we simulate atoms 1:1. To make the simulation run faster, we have to make the atom do things faster - but if we can make the atom "faster", we have to be able to simulate [i]that[/i] as well; and if we can simulate the fast atom, and want to make the simulation faster than real life, we have to speed up our simulator atom, which means.... infinite regress. Therefore, the idealistic, perfect situation (where we can simulate atoms 1:1) prevents us from simulating anything faster than real time, and by extension, any [i]less[/i] ideal system (say, using 10 atoms to simulate 1) will be even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nypyren    12074
Games run at realtime because they're only simulating things that are necessary for the desired effect. What is the desired effect of AI? Decision making, pattern analysis, etc. Atomic/quantum interactions involve a bunch of stuff that you WON'T CARE ABOUT.

Don't bother simulating what you don't care about. You don't really want to be stuck with an AI in a virtual coma because your atomic simulation became a tiny bit unstable and caused virtual brain damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this