Are Programmers about to become redundant?

[Andre' Kesteloot]

Gang,
I have extracted the following article from "The Rapidly Changing Face
of Computing", May 14, 2001
by Jeffrey R. Harrow, Principal Member of Technical Staff, Corporate
Strategy Group, Compaq Computer Corporation,    jeff.harrow@compaq.com
quote:
"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!
unquote
**********************************
The above is copyright Compaq. One can read these weekly news via the
World Wide Web, at     http://www.compaq.com/rcfoc