Time Table for technology
This section is a compilation of various facts and figures which point towards when certain technology
will be ready for general use.
Next
2019 Date when it is FDA approved to make organs in pigs that can be transplanted into humans.
2019 Date when a supercomputer can cause a humanoid robot to act like a human closely enough to
fool someone at a distance of ten feet.
Intelligence is about many things. At the bare minimum, its about predicting the immediate future. If I
cannot predict where my foot will land, I cannot walk. If I put bread in the toaster, I believe (predict) that
it will become toast. If I open the refrigerator, I predict that I will find butter to put on the toast. That kind
of intelligence is logical physical reality intelligence. Another kind of human intelligence tells us to “go
along with current society and its thinking” simply because we are social animals and we must get along
within our society. Culture is a set of shared assumptions and if we want to get along in our culture, we
should share the assumptions that our neighbors hold.
So, what happens if we attempt to mix these two types of intelligence together?
First, let us absorb our cultural intelligence. As I read the commentary these days, it seems quite useful
to most people to be concerned about the pollution of the air, the trashing of the biosphere, the warming
of the weather and the effect it will have in 100 years including the extinction of millions of biological
species. People in foreign lands are starving and dying of disease.
Second, let us walk through the logic of the future as described in books and web sites such as those of
Kurzweil and www.robotscoming.com
Combining the two types of intelligence (social prediction of the future and logical prediction of the
future), we can get a pair of schedules for the future which we can mash together follows:
2008 = Too little concern over CO2 emissions, according to Al Gore.
2008 = Hewlett-Packard Labs unveils the first 3D memristor chip at The Memristor and Memristive
Systems Symposium. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFdDPzcZwbs
2009 = The Smart Action Company releases the SmartAction™ interactive Voice Response System
2009 = Nehalem processor with 8 cores contains 2 billion transistors on one chip. In late 2009 Intel's
Westmere 32 nanometer technology combines the latest Nehalem micro-architecture with graphics
capability integrated directly into the processor.
2009 = Humans concerned with the right of gays to get married.
2010 = Parkinson Disease brain implants improved.
2013 = Sight restored to blind people using inorganic devices.
2015 = Machine to brain interface is much improved and common. Many humans have cell phones
embedded in their bodies. Such humans can surf the internet by merely thinking about it.
2016 = 3D neural networks using Memristors are sold in quantity. Density of artificial neurons exceeds
that of human neurons.
2018 = Diamond becomes more common than silicon as a substrate for integrated circuit electronics.
2023 = Expensive human level robots. New Mars rovers can think for themselves.
2025 = Plan to have a base on the moon for humans. Must ship food from earth to moon. (Since wwe
have intelligent robots on the moon, the need for humans is only political.)
2030 = Inexpensive human level robots.
2035 = Most power is from fusion reactors.
2045 = Humans complain that the titmouse is extinct.
2050 = Humans are deemed obsolete by robots and made extinct except for a few in zoos.
2060 = The US Social Security System implodes because of excess humans in retirement. (Oops!,
anachronism alert.)
2070 = Peak Oil has become valley oil, humans finally run out of all oil. (Oops!, anachronism alert. We
ran out of humans 20 years ago. We also switched to nuclear fusion for energy.)
2100 = Date when it is predicted that humans will have caused global warming which will wipe out
millions of organic species, pollute the air, water and land. (Oops!, anachronism alert. The people who
care about organic species extinction are in zoo cages.)
2150 = Date when the UN plans to have eliminated human poverty throughout the world. (Oops!,
anachronism alert.)
2300 = Date when Ted William’s head is supposed to be thawed and his body recreated in total.
(Oops! The robots couldn’t care less.)
2700 = Humans have filled all dumps with their trash. Call for Wall-E trash compactor. (Oops!,
anachronism alert.)
The problem with this schedule is that the human species which is supposed to do all of the damage is
extinct before the point where the “incredible and irreversible damage” is done.
In addition, the robot dictionary definition of “damage” has changed and refers to damage done to
computers, robots and other inorganic machinery. “Damage to organic species” is an obsolete concept
simply because organic systems are no longer in political control of the planet Earth. The word “who”
refers to robots and such inorganic systems and the term “it” refers to those few humans and other
organic systems located in zoo cages.
Using our social intelligence, little attention is paid to the fact that essentially we are evolving from one
form of life to another and organic life is being replaced by inorganic life. Once you realize this, the
concept of concerning oneself with the extinction of a small bug seems quite trivial compared to the
forthcoming extinction of the human race itself. In Chess, do we worry about losing a Pawn when our
King is in Check? This type of irrational thinking is only possible by using pure “human-oriented social
intelligence.”
Through the eyes of a robot, an iPod is “a species of what I call life”. And so the forthcoming transition
is a political one. It consists of a gradual transition from humans defining what life is to a world in which
the robots will define what life is. In 2009, the human dictionary will rule. In 2029, the robot dictionary
will rule more often. By 2050, the human dictionary will be a joke.
How will this transition occur without upsetting the society?
To answer this, you must first observe that current obligations to pension plans are unworkable going
forward. The Social Security System is a Ponzi scheme. The Social Security Ponzi scheme will implode
like all other Ponzi schemes unless something is done to “make it whole”, or “bail it out”.
Transitions:
Primates with fur.
Humans with clothing.
Humans with eyeglasses.
Humans with contact lenses.
Humans with electronic pacemakers to maintain their heart rhythm.
Humans with cochlea implants.
Humans with computer implants to treat Parkinson’s Disease.
Humans with retinal implants to restore sight.
Humans with night vision goggles.
Humans with phones tied to the wall.
Humans with wireless phones.
Humans with cell phones.
Humans with cell phones using Bluetooth to connect phone to earpiece.
Humans with cell phones using Bluetooth to connect phone to car audio system.
Humans with Bluetooth electronics implanted under their skin like a cochlea implant is, with sound
connected to the ear and microphone connected to the bone (filters correct sound spectrum).
Humans with Bluetooth electronics implanted under their skin and attached to their brain.
Humans with the ability to think and retrieve information from the internet, including their address book,
phone numbers and any book that Google has scanned in.
Some humans can smell with the acuity of the finest bloodhound dog, hear better than any creature, can
see infrared and ultraviolet and measure speed, acceleration and angular acceleration with accurate
internal electronics. Let us call such people Super Humans.
In 2009, some humans in the world are literate but the majority are illiterate. A kind thought would be to
take the next 150 years and get all humans up to the literate level.
In 2025, some humans in the world will be Super Humans as defined above but the majority will not. A
kind thought at that time would be to upgrade all humans to Super Human status by 2500.
Conclusion: the current state of the majority of human concern is simply not consistent with the future.
Stated another way: Most people are mostly wrong about what they should be concerned about
regarding the future.
To the Editor:
I was struck by the quote by the co-founder of the iRobot Corporation, who compares the use of robots
in battle to providing body armor to infantry. He characterizes each as "a moral issue" and notes that
"cost comes in."
There is no doubt that it will be easier, cheaper and more efficient to kill other humans using robots
instead of our own people. History is pretty clear on this point. Whenever one group of people has
technology that makes it easier, cheaper and more efficient to kill and take whatever it desires from
another group, it will use that technology.
War should be expensive. It should cause pain and misery. And it should cost warring nations their
blood and their treasure. To go to war in the absence of an imperative sufficient to demand those costs
would be immoral. The ability to go to war without paying those costs cannot be considered a moral
good.
Tim McElgunn
Cherry Hill, N.J., Feb. 16, 2005
The implications is that if we allow people to die and suffer, eventually the survivors will “learn” to stop
going to war.
The assumption that Tim McElgunn makes is that people will learn from experience and when their sons
come home with PTSD or injuries, they will become anti-war. My experience with human psychology tells
me that the way most people react is to be “proud” of the “sacrifice” that their son or daughter made “to
defend their country’s honor”. Rather than making rational decisions, people often use their “rational
mind” to rationalize the decisions that they made in the past. If Tim McElgunn were correct, then when
you visit a veteran’s hospital, would find it full of anti-war soldiers. In actuality, most soldiers who have
lost a leg in war is even more convinced that his or her leg must have been lost for a good reason.
In a similar manner, a mother is not likely to be found saying “I made a mistake by encouraging my son
to go to war”, they are more likely to say “My son made our country safe for democracy and I am proud
of him.” If their son or husband died, they often will be found visiting the grave and remembering their
beloved as being a wonderful person, probably more wonderful than they actually were.
Consider how people reacted to the US Civil War. Who remembers it more, the victorious North or the
Southerners who lost the war? Obviously the war is much more remembered by the Southerners even
though they lost the war. In addition, their consciousness of war and how it “makes heroes” is such that
a disproportionate number of soldiers come from southern states today, many years after the Civil War.
Applying these principals to Automobiles
How would this apply to automobiles? Should we allow people to die and suffer until “they learn” to stop
drinking and driving? It appears that humans are more afraid of getting caught driving drunk than they
are of having an accident while driving drunk. The statistics for 1999 were that 38% of deaths from
automobile accidents were related to drunk driving.
A car breathalyzer, also known as an ignition interlock device, requires drivers to give a breath sample
prior to starting their cars. If the breathalyzer detects a certain amount of alcohol, the car simply will not
start. A car breathalyzer is a barrier to drunk driving.
Often used by the courts as a combination punishment and deterrent to those convicted of DUI, the
device is installed in the defendant's car. These permanent alcohol detectors are professionally
installed, often at considerable cost, which is, of course, paid by the offender. These car breathalyzers
are not infallible. A willing passenger who has not imbibed could, in theory, blow into the device to fool it
into letting the car start. If the passenger isn’t drunk and the driver is, why not let the passenger drive?
The passenger could be under age, I suppose. The device manufacturers are working on
improvements to prevent such cheating.
I am not under the illusion that people are going to change their fundamental nature. People have been
dying in wars and in car accidents for many years and they don’t seem to “learn from their mistakes”.
I met a woman whose son was brain damaged by an automobile accident and her whole life is centered
around taking care of him. Her point was that not only do 43,000 humans die on this country’s roads
each year, but that 1 million are seriously injured. Such statistics are more meaningful when you meet
the mother of a young 25 year-old who is incapacitated and that has to be taken care of for the rest of
his or her life.
It appears that governments are increasing the use of breathalyzer technology to save lives. I believe
that this spreading use of car breathalyzers will reduce the deaths on the highways by at least 1000
persons per year. Using the ratio of serious injuries to deaths this would also avoid about 23,000
serious injuries.
As you know, I fully approve of using technology to improve human behavior. Cheetahs and humans
evolved on the plains of Africa. Cheetahs have been clocked at 70 miles per hour. One could claim
that cheetahs have evolved to run 70 miles per hour. But one would be hard pressed to prove that
humans evolved to drive machines at 70 miles per hour. It would be interesting to determine the “death
and serious injury” statistics for Cheetahs.
I assume that using robots to drive cars would be the next logical step after breathalyzers. Robot driving
could cut the number of accidents by at least 90% and probably more. Robots aren’t perfect, but they
are not likely to be distracted by cell phones, conversations with passengers, simply falling asleep or
being drunk. Would using robots for this purpose also cause a moral problem in your mind? Is using
robots to eliminate those deaths and serious injuries really that “frightening”?
When fuel injection was first introduced into automobiles, it was quite expensive. Now, years later, it is
inexpensive. In a similar manner, robotic control of cars will be expensive at first and less expensive as
time goes on. Let’s assume that modern quality cars will last 10 years. This is a figure that I hear being
suggested recently. If insurance on a car is $1200 per year for a 16 year-old and averages that for the
life of the car, that would be $12,000. When the additional cost of a robot controlled car hits $10,000, it
will become economically feasible for some drivers. When you add in the fact that you are less likely to
die or get seriously injured, I believe many people will pay $25,000 per car for such a feature.
My “job” is to communicate these advantages of technology and remove people’s fear of progress.
Obviously I am not very good at my job. Maybe I should take some courses in “communication”.
Barack Obama likes his Blackberry and the Secret Service is going to provide him one with a “super
encryption package”. A commentator on NPR noted that young people identify with Barack as they see
him slip out his Blackberry, check it for messages and then slip it back in his pocket. Such activity is
considered “cool” by young people. In addition, Barack says that he is going to be transparent with the
stimulus package and use the internet to display the actual spending of money. To me, that is a very
cool idea.
These observations make me feel that perhaps the youth are more appreciative of modern technology
and that perhaps I am not going to be very successful convincing older people that technology is
beneficial.
Hewlett-Packard Labs has recently unveiled what it claims to be the first 3D memristor chip at The
Memristor and Memristive Systems Symposium.
HP Labs provided details of a prototype chip designed by HP researcher Qiangfei Xia that stacked
memristor crossbar memory cells on top of a CMOS logic chip at the conference, which was co-
sponsored by the University of California, the Semiconductor Industry Association and the National
Science Foundation.
"Xia used imprint lithography to add a memristor crossbar on top of a CMOS logic circuit," said HP Labs
Fellow Stan Williams, inventor of HP's memristive memory technology. "He has built an integrated hybrid
circuit with both transistors and memristors." Williams and HP colleague Greg Snider previously
proposed an FPGA in which configuration bits were located above CMOS transistors in a memristor
crossbar.
Memristor crossbars include two titanium dioxide layers between two perpendicular arrays of metal lines.
One layer of titanium oxide is doped with oxygen vacancies, making it a semiconductor. The adjacent
layer is undoped, leaving it in its natural state as an insulator.
When a crossbar junction is addressed by simultaneously applying a voltage to one crossbar line on the
top and bottom layers, oxygen vacancies drift from the doped to the undoped layer. This causes it to
begin conducting, turning "on" the memory bit. The bit can again be turned "off" by changing the current
direction, whereupon oxygen vacancies migrate back into the doped layer.
According to Williams, HP Labs' memristor-based FPGA demonstrates that a CMOS fab can make
integrated memristor/transistor circuits in three dimensions.
Also at the symposium, Snider unveiled a design that used memristors in their analog mode as
synapses in a neural computing architecture. Memristor crossbars are the only technology that is dense
enough to simulate the human brain, Snider claimed, adding that the HP Labs crossbars are ten times
denser than synapses in the human cortex. By stacking crossbars on a CMOS logic chip, variable
resistance could mimic the learning functions of synapses in neural networks.
HP Labs and Boston University were recently awarded a contract by the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency to build the first artificial neural network based on memristors.
Also at the conference, Massimiliano Di Ventra of the University of California at San Diego described
how memristors can explain biological learning in amoebas. Amoebas learn to change their behavior in a
manner that can be explained by an LC circuit and a memristor.
Di Ventra also presented evidence that microscopic memristive elements are present in unicellular as
well as multicellular organisms.
- R. Colin Johnson
EE Times
don
This section is a compilation of various facts and figures which point towards when certain technology
will be ready for general use.
Next
2019 Date when it is FDA approved to make organs in pigs that can be transplanted into humans.
2019 Date when a supercomputer can cause a humanoid robot to act like a human closely enough to
fool someone at a distance of ten feet.
Intelligence is about many things. At the bare minimum, its about predicting the immediate future. If I
cannot predict where my foot will land, I cannot walk. If I put bread in the toaster, I believe (predict) that
it will become toast. If I open the refrigerator, I predict that I will find butter to put on the toast. That kind
of intelligence is logical physical reality intelligence. Another kind of human intelligence tells us to “go
along with current society and its thinking” simply because we are social animals and we must get along
within our society. Culture is a set of shared assumptions and if we want to get along in our culture, we
should share the assumptions that our neighbors hold.
So, what happens if we attempt to mix these two types of intelligence together?
First, let us absorb our cultural intelligence. As I read the commentary these days, it seems quite useful
to most people to be concerned about the pollution of the air, the trashing of the biosphere, the warming
of the weather and the effect it will have in 100 years including the extinction of millions of biological
species. People in foreign lands are starving and dying of disease.
Second, let us walk through the logic of the future as described in books and web sites such as those of
Kurzweil and www.robotscoming.com
Combining the two types of intelligence (social prediction of the future and logical prediction of the
future), we can get a pair of schedules for the future which we can mash together follows:
2008 = Too little concern over CO2 emissions, according to Al Gore.
2008 = Hewlett-Packard Labs unveils the first 3D memristor chip at The Memristor and Memristive
Systems Symposium. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFdDPzcZwbs
2009 = The Smart Action Company releases the SmartAction™ interactive Voice Response System
2009 = Nehalem processor with 8 cores contains 2 billion transistors on one chip. In late 2009 Intel's
Westmere 32 nanometer technology combines the latest Nehalem micro-architecture with graphics
capability integrated directly into the processor.
2009 = Humans concerned with the right of gays to get married.
2010 = Parkinson Disease brain implants improved.
2013 = Sight restored to blind people using inorganic devices.
2015 = Machine to brain interface is much improved and common. Many humans have cell phones
embedded in their bodies. Such humans can surf the internet by merely thinking about it.
2016 = 3D neural networks using Memristors are sold in quantity. Density of artificial neurons exceeds
that of human neurons.
2018 = Diamond becomes more common than silicon as a substrate for integrated circuit electronics.
2023 = Expensive human level robots. New Mars rovers can think for themselves.
2025 = Plan to have a base on the moon for humans. Must ship food from earth to moon. (Since wwe
have intelligent robots on the moon, the need for humans is only political.)
2030 = Inexpensive human level robots.
2035 = Most power is from fusion reactors.
2045 = Humans complain that the titmouse is extinct.
2050 = Humans are deemed obsolete by robots and made extinct except for a few in zoos.
2060 = The US Social Security System implodes because of excess humans in retirement. (Oops!,
anachronism alert.)
2070 = Peak Oil has become valley oil, humans finally run out of all oil. (Oops!, anachronism alert. We
ran out of humans 20 years ago. We also switched to nuclear fusion for energy.)
2100 = Date when it is predicted that humans will have caused global warming which will wipe out
millions of organic species, pollute the air, water and land. (Oops!, anachronism alert. The people who
care about organic species extinction are in zoo cages.)
2150 = Date when the UN plans to have eliminated human poverty throughout the world. (Oops!,
anachronism alert.)
2300 = Date when Ted William’s head is supposed to be thawed and his body recreated in total.
(Oops! The robots couldn’t care less.)
2700 = Humans have filled all dumps with their trash. Call for Wall-E trash compactor. (Oops!,
anachronism alert.)
The problem with this schedule is that the human species which is supposed to do all of the damage is
extinct before the point where the “incredible and irreversible damage” is done.
In addition, the robot dictionary definition of “damage” has changed and refers to damage done to
computers, robots and other inorganic machinery. “Damage to organic species” is an obsolete concept
simply because organic systems are no longer in political control of the planet Earth. The word “who”
refers to robots and such inorganic systems and the term “it” refers to those few humans and other
organic systems located in zoo cages.
Using our social intelligence, little attention is paid to the fact that essentially we are evolving from one
form of life to another and organic life is being replaced by inorganic life. Once you realize this, the
concept of concerning oneself with the extinction of a small bug seems quite trivial compared to the
forthcoming extinction of the human race itself. In Chess, do we worry about losing a Pawn when our
King is in Check? This type of irrational thinking is only possible by using pure “human-oriented social
intelligence.”
Through the eyes of a robot, an iPod is “a species of what I call life”. And so the forthcoming transition
is a political one. It consists of a gradual transition from humans defining what life is to a world in which
the robots will define what life is. In 2009, the human dictionary will rule. In 2029, the robot dictionary
will rule more often. By 2050, the human dictionary will be a joke.
How will this transition occur without upsetting the society?
To answer this, you must first observe that current obligations to pension plans are unworkable going
forward. The Social Security System is a Ponzi scheme. The Social Security Ponzi scheme will implode
like all other Ponzi schemes unless something is done to “make it whole”, or “bail it out”.
Transitions:
Primates with fur.
Humans with clothing.
Humans with eyeglasses.
Humans with contact lenses.
Humans with electronic pacemakers to maintain their heart rhythm.
Humans with cochlea implants.
Humans with computer implants to treat Parkinson’s Disease.
Humans with retinal implants to restore sight.
Humans with night vision goggles.
Humans with phones tied to the wall.
Humans with wireless phones.
Humans with cell phones.
Humans with cell phones using Bluetooth to connect phone to earpiece.
Humans with cell phones using Bluetooth to connect phone to car audio system.
Humans with Bluetooth electronics implanted under their skin like a cochlea implant is, with sound
connected to the ear and microphone connected to the bone (filters correct sound spectrum).
Humans with Bluetooth electronics implanted under their skin and attached to their brain.
Humans with the ability to think and retrieve information from the internet, including their address book,
phone numbers and any book that Google has scanned in.
Some humans can smell with the acuity of the finest bloodhound dog, hear better than any creature, can
see infrared and ultraviolet and measure speed, acceleration and angular acceleration with accurate
internal electronics. Let us call such people Super Humans.
In 2009, some humans in the world are literate but the majority are illiterate. A kind thought would be to
take the next 150 years and get all humans up to the literate level.
In 2025, some humans in the world will be Super Humans as defined above but the majority will not. A
kind thought at that time would be to upgrade all humans to Super Human status by 2500.
Conclusion: the current state of the majority of human concern is simply not consistent with the future.
Stated another way: Most people are mostly wrong about what they should be concerned about
regarding the future.
To the Editor:
I was struck by the quote by the co-founder of the iRobot Corporation, who compares the use of robots
in battle to providing body armor to infantry. He characterizes each as "a moral issue" and notes that
"cost comes in."
There is no doubt that it will be easier, cheaper and more efficient to kill other humans using robots
instead of our own people. History is pretty clear on this point. Whenever one group of people has
technology that makes it easier, cheaper and more efficient to kill and take whatever it desires from
another group, it will use that technology.
War should be expensive. It should cause pain and misery. And it should cost warring nations their
blood and their treasure. To go to war in the absence of an imperative sufficient to demand those costs
would be immoral. The ability to go to war without paying those costs cannot be considered a moral
good.
Tim McElgunn
Cherry Hill, N.J., Feb. 16, 2005
The implications is that if we allow people to die and suffer, eventually the survivors will “learn” to stop
going to war.
The assumption that Tim McElgunn makes is that people will learn from experience and when their sons
come home with PTSD or injuries, they will become anti-war. My experience with human psychology tells
me that the way most people react is to be “proud” of the “sacrifice” that their son or daughter made “to
defend their country’s honor”. Rather than making rational decisions, people often use their “rational
mind” to rationalize the decisions that they made in the past. If Tim McElgunn were correct, then when
you visit a veteran’s hospital, would find it full of anti-war soldiers. In actuality, most soldiers who have
lost a leg in war is even more convinced that his or her leg must have been lost for a good reason.
In a similar manner, a mother is not likely to be found saying “I made a mistake by encouraging my son
to go to war”, they are more likely to say “My son made our country safe for democracy and I am proud
of him.” If their son or husband died, they often will be found visiting the grave and remembering their
beloved as being a wonderful person, probably more wonderful than they actually were.
Consider how people reacted to the US Civil War. Who remembers it more, the victorious North or the
Southerners who lost the war? Obviously the war is much more remembered by the Southerners even
though they lost the war. In addition, their consciousness of war and how it “makes heroes” is such that
a disproportionate number of soldiers come from southern states today, many years after the Civil War.
Applying these principals to Automobiles
How would this apply to automobiles? Should we allow people to die and suffer until “they learn” to stop
drinking and driving? It appears that humans are more afraid of getting caught driving drunk than they
are of having an accident while driving drunk. The statistics for 1999 were that 38% of deaths from
automobile accidents were related to drunk driving.
A car breathalyzer, also known as an ignition interlock device, requires drivers to give a breath sample
prior to starting their cars. If the breathalyzer detects a certain amount of alcohol, the car simply will not
start. A car breathalyzer is a barrier to drunk driving.
Often used by the courts as a combination punishment and deterrent to those convicted of DUI, the
device is installed in the defendant's car. These permanent alcohol detectors are professionally
installed, often at considerable cost, which is, of course, paid by the offender. These car breathalyzers
are not infallible. A willing passenger who has not imbibed could, in theory, blow into the device to fool it
into letting the car start. If the passenger isn’t drunk and the driver is, why not let the passenger drive?
The passenger could be under age, I suppose. The device manufacturers are working on
improvements to prevent such cheating.
I am not under the illusion that people are going to change their fundamental nature. People have been
dying in wars and in car accidents for many years and they don’t seem to “learn from their mistakes”.
I met a woman whose son was brain damaged by an automobile accident and her whole life is centered
around taking care of him. Her point was that not only do 43,000 humans die on this country’s roads
each year, but that 1 million are seriously injured. Such statistics are more meaningful when you meet
the mother of a young 25 year-old who is incapacitated and that has to be taken care of for the rest of
his or her life.
It appears that governments are increasing the use of breathalyzer technology to save lives. I believe
that this spreading use of car breathalyzers will reduce the deaths on the highways by at least 1000
persons per year. Using the ratio of serious injuries to deaths this would also avoid about 23,000
serious injuries.
As you know, I fully approve of using technology to improve human behavior. Cheetahs and humans
evolved on the plains of Africa. Cheetahs have been clocked at 70 miles per hour. One could claim
that cheetahs have evolved to run 70 miles per hour. But one would be hard pressed to prove that
humans evolved to drive machines at 70 miles per hour. It would be interesting to determine the “death
and serious injury” statistics for Cheetahs.
I assume that using robots to drive cars would be the next logical step after breathalyzers. Robot driving
could cut the number of accidents by at least 90% and probably more. Robots aren’t perfect, but they
are not likely to be distracted by cell phones, conversations with passengers, simply falling asleep or
being drunk. Would using robots for this purpose also cause a moral problem in your mind? Is using
robots to eliminate those deaths and serious injuries really that “frightening”?
When fuel injection was first introduced into automobiles, it was quite expensive. Now, years later, it is
inexpensive. In a similar manner, robotic control of cars will be expensive at first and less expensive as
time goes on. Let’s assume that modern quality cars will last 10 years. This is a figure that I hear being
suggested recently. If insurance on a car is $1200 per year for a 16 year-old and averages that for the
life of the car, that would be $12,000. When the additional cost of a robot controlled car hits $10,000, it
will become economically feasible for some drivers. When you add in the fact that you are less likely to
die or get seriously injured, I believe many people will pay $25,000 per car for such a feature.
My “job” is to communicate these advantages of technology and remove people’s fear of progress.
Obviously I am not very good at my job. Maybe I should take some courses in “communication”.
Barack Obama likes his Blackberry and the Secret Service is going to provide him one with a “super
encryption package”. A commentator on NPR noted that young people identify with Barack as they see
him slip out his Blackberry, check it for messages and then slip it back in his pocket. Such activity is
considered “cool” by young people. In addition, Barack says that he is going to be transparent with the
stimulus package and use the internet to display the actual spending of money. To me, that is a very
cool idea.
These observations make me feel that perhaps the youth are more appreciative of modern technology
and that perhaps I am not going to be very successful convincing older people that technology is
beneficial.
Hewlett-Packard Labs has recently unveiled what it claims to be the first 3D memristor chip at The
Memristor and Memristive Systems Symposium.
HP Labs provided details of a prototype chip designed by HP researcher Qiangfei Xia that stacked
memristor crossbar memory cells on top of a CMOS logic chip at the conference, which was co-
sponsored by the University of California, the Semiconductor Industry Association and the National
Science Foundation.
"Xia used imprint lithography to add a memristor crossbar on top of a CMOS logic circuit," said HP Labs
Fellow Stan Williams, inventor of HP's memristive memory technology. "He has built an integrated hybrid
circuit with both transistors and memristors." Williams and HP colleague Greg Snider previously
proposed an FPGA in which configuration bits were located above CMOS transistors in a memristor
crossbar.
Memristor crossbars include two titanium dioxide layers between two perpendicular arrays of metal lines.
One layer of titanium oxide is doped with oxygen vacancies, making it a semiconductor. The adjacent
layer is undoped, leaving it in its natural state as an insulator.
When a crossbar junction is addressed by simultaneously applying a voltage to one crossbar line on the
top and bottom layers, oxygen vacancies drift from the doped to the undoped layer. This causes it to
begin conducting, turning "on" the memory bit. The bit can again be turned "off" by changing the current
direction, whereupon oxygen vacancies migrate back into the doped layer.
According to Williams, HP Labs' memristor-based FPGA demonstrates that a CMOS fab can make
integrated memristor/transistor circuits in three dimensions.
Also at the symposium, Snider unveiled a design that used memristors in their analog mode as
synapses in a neural computing architecture. Memristor crossbars are the only technology that is dense
enough to simulate the human brain, Snider claimed, adding that the HP Labs crossbars are ten times
denser than synapses in the human cortex. By stacking crossbars on a CMOS logic chip, variable
resistance could mimic the learning functions of synapses in neural networks.
HP Labs and Boston University were recently awarded a contract by the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency to build the first artificial neural network based on memristors.
Also at the conference, Massimiliano Di Ventra of the University of California at San Diego described
how memristors can explain biological learning in amoebas. Amoebas learn to change their behavior in a
manner that can be explained by an LC circuit and a memristor.
Di Ventra also presented evidence that microscopic memristive elements are present in unicellular as
well as multicellular organisms.
- R. Colin Johnson
EE Times
don
 | |  | |  |