"I Know Something You Don't!"

At least, that's what one particular computer seems to be saying!

Today, we program our computers, laborious-line-of-code by laborious-line-of-code. Then we test the program, and sometimes swear, "It can't be doing that!" But subsequent investigation, perhaps using
a fresh pair of eyes, always does lead to an understanding of how and why a given program did what it did (assuming the hardware is stable). Now though, in at least one case, it seems that an unusual type of
computer has solved a problem in a way that its designer STILL doesn't understand!

Brought to our attention by RCFoC readers Frosty Cummings, Nathan Price, Darrin Resner, and others, the April 9 NewsObserver.com article "Computers That Improve Themselves" (available only with a site
subscription at http://www.newsobserver.com/content/today/) tells the tale of how University of Sussex's Adrian Thompson has spent the last four years developing computing elements that actually -- mutate
themselves.

They're based on Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs), which we can think of as a huge collection of primitive logic circuits that can be interconnected with each other. But those interconnections are not
static -- they can very quickly be reconfigured, time and time again, under program control. Essentially, this chip can reconfigure itself as it sees fit to best solve a problem! (If you're thinking that this sounds disturbingly like something we might have learned about in biology class -- well, I won't argue...)

Now, instant self-reconfiguration is pretty neat -- indeed, it's the concept behind a rather special computer produced by StarBridge Systems (http://www.starbridgesystems.com/tech-over.html) that claims to offer
a thousand times the power of a traditional PC (for certain very specialized tasks) in a box about the same size! NASA must be convinced (or at least intrigued), because their Langley Research
center is reportedly buying one.

But even more interesting to me, is the story of how Thompson developed an FPGA "circuit" that could distinguish between two audio tones. He programmed in the very basics of how to recognize tones, and the computer then took itself through 4,000 generations of circuit configurations to end up with the circuit that worked best -- but it worked TOO well!

"Out of 100 logic cells he had assigned to the task, only a third seemed to be critical to the circuit's work. In other words, the circuit was more efficient, by a huge order of magnitude, than a similar circuit designed by humans using known principles.

And get this: Evolution had left five logic cells unconnected to the rest of the circuit, in a position where they should not have been able to influence its workings. Yet if Thompson disconnected them, the circuit failed!

Evidently, the chip had evolved a way to use the electromagnetic properties of a signal in a nearby cell. But the fact is that Thompson doesn't know how it works!"

Which brings up some rather sensitive questions. Such as, if we used such techniques to develop a wonderfully effective circuit for, say, controlling a nuclear power plant, or driving a locomotive, or moving
air traffic, but we didn't really understand just WHY it worked so well, would it be prudent for us to use it?

I mean -- I'd really hate for our machines to begin to consider us --redundant...

Don't Blink!

This is an excerpt from the "Rapidly Changing Face of Computing, " a free weekly multimedia technology journal written by Jeffrey R. Harrow, Principal Member of Technical Staff for the Corporate Strategy group at Compaq. A more extensive version of this discussion, as well as others around the innovations and trends of contemporary computing and the technologies that drive them, are available at http://www.compaq.com/rcfoc . Jeff's opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Compaq. The RCFoC is a service of, and Copyright 2000, Compaq Computer Corp."