Re: [beam] Re: Wire Computing? A Theory
- 'Everyone knows...run significantly more efficiently...' - that is really a
myth put about by nerds still stuck in the 80s or even earlier.
The quests for super efficiency and speed for experimental prototypes are
also off in the same make belief land.
The problem as I see it is that nobody has a clue how to use Beam technology
to do more than jiggle things round a bit. MT - with those shovel sized
hands of his (he is a big guy) - created beautiful and expertly crafted
critters which were for the time quite amazing and the jiggling was finely
tuned by a perceptive mind, but still all they did was jiggle around a bit.
And that really is where Beam is at - things jiggle around a bit.
Now one, if not the main, driving force for Beam (besides that MT could see
how to do it) was the fact that digital computers are not fault tolerant,
get a bit error and the program crashes. Beam circuits are fault tolerant
and that was MT's argument which I think got him funded.
However today's digital technology is a lot more stable and bit errors are
so rare that for all practical experimental purposes they can be ignored.
So where can Beam go? Choosing different coloured paint or programs or chips
or .... for Beam Robots isn't going to progress things.
Although Beam is an excellent introduction to getting things to jiggle about
a bit, it will only advance IF AND ONLY IF people build working Beam
critters that actually do something comparable to what is achievable with
non Beam technology.
Only by building and trying out more complex architectures will the way
ahead become clearer because, as has been demonstrated time after time, the
world isn't really like what the people who theorise think it is.
How can such architectures be built?
A table sized breadboard with hundreds of amplifiers and Schmitt triggers
and inverters and resistors and capacitors and ... - I think not, too many
wires to come loose.
A mass of components soldered on prototype boards - been there done that in
the 1980s - too difficult to change things.
A specially designed GateArray - a bit pointless if you have no experience
of slightly simpler architectures.
A software model of a brain - sounds more like it, far easier to implement.
Anyway for what it is worth, the latter is the route I am taking, each of my
robots has a model of a brain constructed in software and that brain
processes messages from sensors and controls actuators depending on the
current behaviour, that is the current BEHAVE model, that is the current
instantiation of variables that the brain Has (Have) which tell it how to
How to Behave (Be Have) - choose from available behaviours. For my small
robots the behaviours are instantiations from the classes bold, timid, fast,
slow, like-light, like-dark.
On top of that are instructions I give to the robot which may be embedded
routines, remembered routines, or immediate commands over an IR or radio
link. But since those commands are processed by the brain under its current
BeHave mode the robot is fault tolerant.
Also the remembered routines can be modified by commands or other routines
so the robot can learn.
Does it matter what language or language implementation is used?
Actually yes because lots won't run on small processors.
Others are 'smack your hands if you don't abide by the rules' languages
which make it especially difficult to build state machines which don't have
a fixed sequence, the sequences need to be controlled totally by external
data - when is the last time you saw a brain which only has fixed sequences
or even only sets of fixed sequences.
Others won't allow convenient data storage for embedded or remembered
Others seem to be written by people who despise any interaction with the
real world at all.
And yet more whose authors think I have all day to wait while their
compiler/loaders do their job or who think I really love typing in command
And finally no, using a Pi or Beagle XXX or even a Harduino with stacks of
shields just so I can type in more command strings and have access to a
filing system isn't an option when they take more power than the actuators.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 6:05 AM
Subject: [beam] Re: Wire Computing? A Theory
Does anyone have a suggestion as to how to access an AVR's underlying
hardware levels directly? I want to compile the program on my laptop and use
a compiler to write it to the micro's flash directly in machine code format.
Because I view it as an optimal utilization of the micro's resources,
particularly smaller ones with limited resources like AtTinys or PICmicros.
Everyone knows that machine coded programs run significantly more
efficiently than compiled high level programs, and they use less memory
because many functions and operators can be represented by merely a few bits
in machine code, as well as machine code having no need for the syntax and
idiosyncracies that high level code presents. While machine coding is very
difficult and slow to do, my computer can do it for me, and I'm free to
write the code in whatever language I choose. Personally, I like Lisp,
although I'm barely familiar with it. I could also do Java, Lua, C, etc. So
if there are any tips for that, I could use some. Thanks, Connor.
P.S. I also learned about something called a ZISC(Zero Instruction Set
Computer) architecture. It's basically like a synchronous digital nervous
network, versus the asynchronous digital nerve nets used in BEAM. It only
contains a handful of "neurons", not comparable to Nvs, I don't think, but
still, a ZISC computer's only purpose is pattern recognition and response,
and they also tend to use Content Addressable Memory(CAM), so basically it's
a synchronous uber-complex BEAM circuit, and it's actually been around
almost as long as BEAM, the first one appeared in 1993, I believe. What if
we combined the two, a synchronous digital neural network with immense
flexibility and learning capacity, with an asynchronous digital nerve net,
traditional BEAM, as a lower level interface?
- Yeah, the usability bit is a primary focus of mine. Just for fun, really, I've taken an approach at a very traditional style, basically using a set of counters in place of an actual processing unit. At it's simplest, it lacks the hardware to perform Boolean logic operations outside of 1's and 2s complement, but these can still be used to simulate logic functions in a few cycles. It can also simulate bit shifting easily enough by multiplying or dividing by 2. It also places quotients and remainders into different registers for easy handling of remainders. Not to mention floating point math isn't difficult, either. It could even perform <, =, > comparisons between values. As a matter of fact, I can't really say that any electronic computer has ever been built in this fashion. I'm pretty much basing the design entirely on DigiComp2, a mechanical 4-bit binary computer distributed as an educational toy from 1968-1976.
Yes, the 1-bit processor array concept is in fact cellular automata, which is why I refer to each unit as a "cell". I don't entirely understand bandwidth, yet. But the idea doesn't really focus on that. It regards robustness of the system, as well as massive parallel processing without most of the usability problems. I would also think it much more flexible, because a key construct is that each cell can alter its connectivity with its neighbors. It would take several orders of magnitude more component failures to trash the system than your traditional hardware, it could also be incredibly fault tolerant, and I'm thinking on the lines that the entire system would be programmed as a whole, so that determining how each cell should connect can be left up to the OS shell. Also, even if bandwidth restricts how quickly information is processed, another perk of the idea is that a very large amount of data could be processed at once.
On a side note, I once came up with an idea for a machine that was mostly electronic, but stored data temporarily as photon states(like, particle for 0 and wave for 1), and would be able to take advantage of the fact that photons, being 4-dimensional objects, can move in more directions than we can perceive, and thus allow the machine to literally do everything at once. What I mean is that each new cycle would take place in the same time frame as the last cycle, so that it could register an infinite amount of data in about a billionth of a second or so. It would only ever have to go forward in time if it needed to write a result back to main memory or update I/O, because the way it works, the events that occurred in previous steps literally would have never happened, and so the electronic memory wouldn't be able to remember such a result, and the outside world could only observe the final state of the program, if there was one. Fundamentally it is a photon based delay line with a negative delay. As in, instead of the delay propagating forward in time, it "rewinds" time slightly. So the potential would be literally instant computation, a stack of infinite size could be fed into the computer and processed in less than a billionth of a second, and an entire program run could be accomplished in the same amount of time. Branches and subroutines would be included. Only writing data back to memory or porting to the I/Os would really take any time at all. Only the program's final result could be observed from outside, as each step in between would never have happened in our timeline. Also, the program counter would have to be photon based, somehow, since if it was electronic, it wouldn't be able to remember what program line to go to next after time was rewritten again. The only thing I can see being interpreted as dangerous with this is that it does, indeed, rewrite time. But it only rewrites about a billionth of a second each time, and it doesn't effect outside events whatsoever. It has absolutely no way to affect reality.
> For myself, life is catching up with me. Come Monday, I'll be starting a
> new degree ( one not even tangentially related to my first ), so I've been
> rushing around trying to get all that in order -- no time for seriously
> thinking about robotics at all.
> I've only got a minute or two now, but, some few comments. The massively
> parallel 1-bit processors sounds a bit like a cellular atomaton type
> system. I remember having see once ( but can I find it now? of course not!
> ) a computer system that was being developed in that vein, compiler and
> all. There is certainly potential for quite a bit of performance, but for
> maximum performance, the bottleneck is often memory bandwidth, and not,
> strictly, computational. A large number of processors with a handful of
> neighbors and a 1-bit interconnect is not going to help in that line.
> To be honest, much of the architecture design lately has been targeted at
> increasing performance ( adding parallel instruction sets, vectorizability,
> hyperthreads, etc. ) but because of memory access issues and programming
> concurrency issues, simple small instructions and a minimal set of fully
> atomic instructions has seemed to have the best balance of usability and
> performance. No one has really been able to demonstrate an architecture
> that is both highly performant and efficient in the face of concurrency (
> and many parallel computational units ) while remaining easy to program. I
> think what can be said about "traditional" architectures, is that they are
> easy to understand and they work "well enough."
> Back to work...
> Martin Jay McKee