Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!sarah!newserve!bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu!vu0208
From: vu0208@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Can we build computers that build Computers?
Message-ID: <1991Jun18.202403.9592@newserve.cc.binghamton.edu>
Date: 18 Jun 91 20:24:03 GMT
Sender: usenet@newserve.cc.binghamton.edu (Mr News)
Organization: State University of New York at Binghamton
Lines: 55
Originator: vu0208@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu


In article <2705@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> mshute@cs.man.ac.uk (Malcolm Shute) writes:
>In article <22157@brahms.udel.edu> gdtltr@brahms.udel.edu (gdtltr@limbo.org (The Befuddled One)) writes:
>>   It seems to me that the main problem along these lines is describing
>>the problem and the desired goal.
>This is the sort of problem which G.A. (genetic algorithms) are supposed
>to tackle.  So, like you, I'd agree that computers do more and more to
>design computers.  As you also hint, they are already doing it...
>today's sophisticated CAD does more to design computers than yesterday's did.
>In the same way, today's compilers do more to write their own assembler programs
>(from the abstract ideas which the human sketches out to them) than yesterday's did.
>

Doing smart CAD is not enough! 

In my original posting I meant "Can we (humans) build Computers which
in turn build new computer architectures without any human
intervention at any stage.(period)

All these CADs/GAs/AIs etc are ofcourse the building blocks and tools
that will be available to human-designed-computers.


>Are these really 'designing' off their own bat, though?
>Of course not!  What good would a machine be to mankind if it refused to
>do what the human operators commanded it to do... a machine, afterall,
>is built by humans to do the tiresome work *for* the humans.
>We will always want the machine (the computer which designs computers in
>this case) to act under the direction of human guidance.

that's exactly my point.

>As I have said above, I don't believe that the human component will ever be
>removed from this system. 

Here I will disagree, Assume (atleast in a fantasy) we have built such
a smart-self-reliant-computer (or h-m-c human-made-computer) that will
only take the  specification of functions/tasks and the evaluation
standards from it's creator (the human) for CREATING a new computer
architecture (I call it c-m-c ie. computer-made computer)!

You can think of all the fantastic
tools/libraries/databases/algorithms/self evaluation schemes etc..
that are availabe to this h-m-c. Then I don't see any reason why it
cannot build a machine (c-m-c) that equals or exceeds the specs. we
provided to it without any human intervention at all!!

Now you may argue that what if the specs. we provide are so tight &
tough that it may not even come close to it. That's where we have to
ponder and do research, and I am sure such an h-m-c will help us to
solve these problems and lead us to the point where a h-m-c will be
completely autonomous and would only require specs/problems from a 
human not their solutions.!!!

-- a Dreamer.