Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Submission + - Deep Learning On Babbage's Analytical Engine (i-programmer.info)

mikejuk writes: Speculating on what might have happened if Babbage had built his Analytical Engine is fun, but did you ever think that a Victorian computer could implement a neural network and learn to read handwritten digits? Well it can and it's not a joke.
So how can you implement a deep neural network on a machine that doesn't exist?
The answer is that there is an Analytic engine simulator that runs the instruction set of the original machine. However, a neural network is a big computation and the engine has only 20kbytes of memory and a small instruction set. This didn't stop Adam P. Goucher from doing it.
The 412,663 lines of code needed for the program would correspond to a stack of Jacquard loom style cards as tall as the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. After training on 20,000 handwritten digit images the results of testing on 10,000 new images it was achieving a 96.31% accuracy.
So Babbage could have made AI possible in Victorian times?
Not really.
The time it would have taken to process the 412,663 cards is possibly several centuries.

Comment Re:Land of the free (Score 1) 545

> but you're always allowed to own a gun if you own your own home

That's not true everywhere. No state forbids ownership (though it's certainly more difficult in some states than in others) but certain municipalities deny ownership to many or most who seek it. Chicago did for many years until its laws were ruled unconstitutional. Same with Wahington, D.C., which changed its laws after losing in court.

In New York City it's still very difficult to own a weapon even just to keep at one's residence. It has high application fees and applicants can be denied for seemingly arbitrary reasons.

So there's no place where it's automatically forbidden for everyone, but it's certainly not true that a person is always allowed to everywhere in the US.

Comment Re: Purpose of the law... (Score 2) 545

Usually that's true. State laws forbidding neglect or endangerment of children were being used (for example) to charge parents who let their children walk to the park with a crime. So the law isn't so much to say that parents are allowed to do X but that states are not allowed to charge parents who do X with a crime.

Comment Re:Sure! (Score 1) 935

If you live in a place where even most law enforcement doesn't carry weapons, then it must be nearly free of violent crime.

I don't "feel safe in [my] country openly waving [my] gun around" because 1) I don't live in a state where ordinary people are allowed to carry them and 2) if I did it would be concealed carry.

"statistically I'm much safer and much less likely to be locked up by the government in mine" - no argument here, the USA locks up more people per capita than anyone, IIRC. And that's mostly due to out stupid War on Drugs, which is also where a lot of the violent crime comes from.

Comment Re:Sure! (Score 1) 935

That's nice. Do they tuck you in at night, too? I don't know where you live, but go find one of the people you're entrusting your life to who does carry a gun and ask them if they'd trade it for a "Smart Gun".

It's really a separate discussion but in the US, our highest court has affirmed that the police don't have an obligation to respond promptly to a call or prevent crimes in commission when they're reported.

Slashdot Top Deals

Overflow on /dev/null, please empty the bit bucket.

Working...