A MYSTERY - Why Did Bio-Supercomputing Go Dark?

a reply to: soficrow

Thanks for the informative response, sofi.




I know absolutely zero zip nada about this particular subject and am finding it to be quite fascinating reading everyone's responses here.

But I must admit, I'm having a hell of a time trying to wrap my brain around the idea of bio-mechanical machinery... humans with mechanical parts sure, but machines with bio material ?? Wow.

I've never been one to put much salt into the whole singularity idea... but it certainly seems that it may very well come to fruition afterall, and perhaps much sooner than we think.



It really does make you wonder if this particular area of science has "gone dark" or not because it's not something that's being widely talked about (or so it seems). Most branches of science that are in the research and development stage at least get some sort of regular articles being submitted once in a while.

So if it has gone dark, why ?

Has this branch of science been yanked from the public and has now become "black ops" per se ?

Or has the whole idea just simply been scrapped for whatever reason ?

Interesting thoughts to ponder indeed.



Great thread !

a reply to: SolAquarius

I have also read articles about bacteria either eating or giving off electricity as a waste product and some of the bacteria produced filaments which electricity would conduct along. This seems like something that could be tweaked.

Now there's a science that definitely needs to be examined further.

Just imagine the many uses of those little critters...

Free self-sustaining energy anyone ?

originally posted by: SolAquarius

originally posted by: soficrow


No - prion proteins do not have a die-off timeframe. Most are incredibly, astoundingly stable. As far as denaturing, even regular autoclaving doesn't "kill" them (yeah, I know, they're not alive) - exposures to extreme temperatures, radiation, acid, etc., generally just cause them to evolve into a new strain.

I heard about prions and I knew they could replicate I didn't realize they were so hardy.

It would be interesting If bacteria could have their genetic code modified to make prion proteins that work together as a micro computer. One bacteria might not have very much computing power but at the rate they reproduce they could form a bio film network of billions or more. I have also read articles about bacteria either eating or giving off electricity as a waste product and some of the bacteria produced filaments which electricity would conduct along. This seems like something that could be tweaked.
LINK:There are Microbes that eat and poo nothing but electricity

Good ideas, link. Thanks.

FYI
Jan 14, 2017. A Prion-like Protein Discovered in Bacteria

Bacteria do not develop transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, but they have been found to produce prions – proteins that can adopt alternative conformations with different functions.

...The finding of a prion in bacteria indicates that this form of protein-based heredity arose before eukaryotes emerged on Earth. Similar prion-like protein domains have also been found in other phyla of bacteria, suggesting the existence of an important source of epigenetic diversity that can allow bacterial growth under diverse conditions. Exactly how bacterial prions confer new functions will be exciting to discover.

Last time we learned that eukaryotes probably didn’t invent the nucleus. Now we find that prions likely emerged first in bacteria. Did eukaryotes invent anything?

HMM. So now I'm thinking' electrified prions...

a reply to: CranialSponge

...It really does make you wonder if this particular area of science has "gone dark" or not because it's not something that's being widely talked about (or so it seems). Most branches of science that are in the research and development stage at least get some sort of regular articles being submitted once in a while.

So if it has gone dark, why ?

Has this branch of science been yanked from the public and has now become "black ops" per se ?

Or has the whole idea just simply been scrapped for whatever reason ?

Interesting thoughts to ponder indeed.

Thanks. And uh huh.

Does make one wonder, doesn't it?

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: CranialSponge

...It really does make you wonder if this particular area of science has "gone dark" or not because it's not something that's being widely talked about (or so it seems). Most branches of science that are in the research and development stage at least get some sort of regular articles being submitted once in a while.

So if it has gone dark, why ?

Has this branch of science been yanked from the public and has now become "black ops" per se ?

Or has the whole idea just simply been scrapped for whatever reason ?

Interesting thoughts to ponder indeed.

Thanks. And uh huh.

Does make one wonder, doesn't it?

Maybe the research has gone "black" or off the reservation because It could be taken much further and most likely

would ruffle ethical feathers.

I believe there is an agreement between nations not to participate in human cloning but I have a strong suspicion that human cloning has been experimented with off the reservation in black sites outside of the law.
Once the genie is out of the bottle it's hard to put it back in.

Quite often tech will take a while to come to fruition as its waiting for something else, flat screens and SSD drives were in theory available in the 70/80's but the ability to make them commercially was beyond the ability of the time.

If its been published work then anyone can continue their research but from what i've had a look at its doable but don't expect it to be in your next iPhone etc and i'd expect it more for customers with deep pockets like the D-Wave quantum computers due to the setup and maintenance costs until someone figures out the magic sauce and makes it all work.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: soficrow

SnF!! I did my college lit report on this subject almost almost ten years ago. It went dark after that.

Might be informative to see if the gubmint is doing any sideline research either directly in biocomputation or in tangential fields. If something's gone dark, you will sometimes have more luck looking for patterns in indirectly related research. Say you might not be finding a lot of action in DNA storage of data, but the common approach requires a type 3 turbodiscomboobulator which doesn't have a lot of other use. So you find that T3TDB is having a new Renaissance at the same national lab that did the original DNA storage work, and it's the same people. That tells you something.

eta: I'd normally volunteer to go comb the shadows to see what popped out but the last six weeks I'm lucky to have time to pee, thus you often see me in tiny bursts about this time of day while I'm waking up

etaa: Other things to also look for, if there were any folk doing a lot of research on that and only that, especially if they were doing it for the gubmint for the most part, look for the Daniel Jackson effect - look for them to publish a lot up until the root research goes dark, then you never hear from them again. Or if you do, the subsequent papers are derivative or shallow in a way they weren't before, indicating that they're phoned in or done by someone else. THAT is also a clue that it went black.

a reply to: Maxatoria

but don't expect it to be in your next iPhone etc

Check.

Think transhumanism. That's where this is going. imho

a reply to: JinMI

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: soficrow

SnF!! I did my college lit report on this subject almost almost ten years ago. It went dark after that.

a reply to: Bedlam

The OP referred to a specific project -a book-sized bio-supercomputer proof-of-concept model- announced last year about this time. That's what went dark. One would expect updates, at least promo for investments, but nada.

Scientists have managed to shrink a supercomputer to the size of a book using biological motors

…can solve mathematical problems as quickly as a supercomputer because it operates in parallel rather than in sequence.

Researchers from Lund University, Linnaeus University, University of California Berkeley, Dresden University of Technology, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, the University of Liverpool, McGill University, Molecular Sense Ltd and Philips Innovation Services have used nanotechnology to create molecular motors that can perform several calculations simultaneously rather than sequentially. ….

…….Their research, entitled “Parallel computation with molecular-motor-propelled agents in nanofabricated networks“ is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Shall I assume you only read the headline, not the post?

originally posted by: soficrow
Shall I assume you only read the headline, not the post?

You may assume anything you like.

You made a statement - did it go dark or just die out.

I replied with an approach that would often work to ferret out more information in such cases.

You reply with the quoted non-sequitur.

So again - if you actually want an answer to the question you posed, there are time-honoured means of ferreting out the answer. I have noticed that on ATS, often the question seems more tantalizing than the answer, especially if getting that answer requires the slightest amount of work. I notice, too, that you haven't done the lowest level ground work you might have done, at least you certainly haven't stated so.

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

The bio-supercomputer was real, and it worked. Definitely not in "Sci-Fi land."

I'm hoping someone here has some hard information.

Anyone

The last mentioned dates the OP posted were only a year ago -- I mean that's like not even a drop in the bucket for theoretical and prototyping R&D.

You'll see more about this kind of thing in the next 10-15 years I'd imagine.... they produced a math calculating computer that ran at average or slow speed as a proof of concept.

The real super computers are probably pretty deep in development, it's just all top secret right now.

Like, even consumer devices often times take more than a year from proof of concept to an actual thing, and the application of such a super computer wouldn't be to consumers, so you wouldn't see ad's targeting consumers for product awareness or investment/funding potential -- this kind of thing gets military funding and always goes dark after proof of concept. They'll perfect it, use it, surpass it and then release it for consumers if there is any consumer application for it -- which will be in no shorter than a decade from now.

Then there is the fact that every form of computer architecture is better at specific types of processing, which means just because bio computers are viable and maybe even superior in certain fields, it wouldn't necessitate the redundancy of traditional tech computers or ever crystal computers or again even, quantum computers.

IBM talked about their earth shattering 300GHz Crystal Computer way back in 2007 [10 years ago] and went dark since then.

"IBM To Shatter Moore’s Law With 300GHz CPU"

a reply to: Bedlam

Sorry - did not mean to insult you, just looking for clarification, based on the assumptions you appeared to have made.

...I have noticed that on ATS, often the question seems more tantalizing than the answer, especially if getting that answer requires the slightest amount of work. I notice, too, that you haven't done the lowest level ground work you might have done, at least you certainly haven't stated so.

I had to use 2 posts for background because I hit the character limit. Most of my threads are quite lengthy with lots of references. Yes, I have loads more for this topic, especially illustrating medical applications of biocomputing with AI. No, I won't be posting them [it's a pearls and swine thing].

I asked for help, clarifying my main weaknesses, notably in physics. At the same time, I am confident that I know a helluva lot more about bio-potentials than most anyone on ATS.

I am truly sorry that you are unable to respect other Members' different strengths - or that some of us actually use ATS to help ourselves learn and grow.

All the best,
~ sofi

a reply to: SRPrime

The last mentioned dates the OP posted were only a year ago -- I mean that's like not even a drop in the bucket for theoretical and prototyping R&D. ....this kind of thing gets military funding and always goes dark after proof of concept. ...

Many thanks for your informative, respectful post.

...Two of the research partners on the project are businesses: Molecular Sense Ltd and Philips Innovation Services. Both are involved with developing "technical solutions and devices for the markets of biomedical devices and biomaterials."

From my (unposted) research, it is apparent that such applications are surging ahead along with other nano-biotech. And I suspect you are right - the military may have taken over the bio-supercomputer development. But given the international participation in the research, I'm not assuming it's the US military although they may have outbid other contenders.

It should be said that these days super computers are more designed around doing lots of different tasks at the same time than trying to do them one after another and thus a modern super will have virtually nothing like what a 1970's cray will have for example but credit to cray for slapping in the comfy seating.

We work generally on the simple principle of lots of cheap stuff grinding out the answers, a bit like how accountants worked in the 1900's these days due to problems of heat and power consumption.

You should consider any system viable if you can get data in to it and have reliable processing of the task and be able to get the processed data out and at the moment from what i've read the bio systems while its possible to do it are a right royal mess in the work required meaning the cost is stupid at the moment and requires very specialist staff etc thus making it not worth it versus a lump of silicon.

a reply to: Maxatoria

...at the moment from what i've read the bio systems while its possible to do it are a right royal mess in the work required meaning the cost is stupid at the moment and requires very specialist staff etc thus making it not worth it versus a lump of silicon.

The promo says the model runs much more cheaply but overall maybe not. Plus, it is not faster so why bother. In any event, looks like the project breakthroughs are being targeted to medical applications and devices - quite successfully.

a reply to: soficrow

Probably what you and I call things might be different, I'm from the mainframe sort of field where a super computer is the F1 car versus the Prius of a mainframe we got due to tight bosses.

The main advantage I could see with bio tech is the fact it could probably be more wearable compared to lumpy silicon based stuff so for health care and other low need for processing power it could be good but at some point it will need to call out/receive data and its making sure that it always works on the chest strap on someone to keep them alive.

a reply to: Maxatoria

Thanks.
Could be. I only have the news coverage, the promo out of the universities, Philips etc, and the PNAS paper. And no deep knowledge or preconceptions about any particular approach.

Scientists have managed to shrink a supercomputer to the size of a book using biological motors

An international group of scientists has figured out how to make the parallel computing seen in great hulking supercomputers work in a device the size of a book.

A group of international scientists has developed a biocomputer the size of a book or laptop that can solve mathematical problems as quickly as a supercomputer because it operates in parallel rather than in sequence.

PNAS
Parallel computation with molecular-motor-propelled agents in nanofabricated networks

originally posted by: soficrow
I asked for help, clarifying my main weaknesses, notably in physics. At the same time, I am confident that I know a helluva lot more about bio-potentials than most anyone on ATS.

Apparently we're posting at cross-purposes.

To dispel the assumptions on my part, are you:

1) Just posting about biocomputational vector processors because they're interesting and the mystery of why no one seems to be working on it was a literary device to increase the interest
2) You're actually wondering if much of the entire field has gone dark (what I picked up from your op)
3) You're wondering about the fate of that specific instance in the OP

Having been a not insignificant part of a design team that built and fielded one of the fastest vector processors in the world at that time, the general topic is of interest. And I have at least a few insights into where things go and how they end up. This one is a bit afield from my usual stomping grounds but that doesn't mean I can't find out, in time.

a reply to: soficrow

It went the same way as holographic storage

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: soficrow

It went the same way as holographic storage

Hey, I had great hopes for holostorage and bubble memory.

I had an ISA bubble memory card in my old PC for years. Nearly 180k, and fast!