11–14 of 14 posts
It seems very premature to say "let's build spiking NN hardware!" (or a million core cluster) before we even know how to write the software.
Spiking NNs need their Alexnet before it makes any sense to make dedicated hardware IMO.
From article: > Cause and Effect: If Neuron A fires just a few milliseconds before Neuron B, the brain assumes A caused B. The synapse between them gets stronger. A recent study from Stanford found that it's more complex than this rule, some synapses followed it, some did the opposite, etc.
Interesting, but SpiNNAker (ugh) has been around for 6 years now, and presumably they had smaller options than that before. Has it actually produced anything useful . It seems very premature to say "let's build spiking NN hardware!" (or a million core cluster) before we even know how to write the software. Spiking NNs need their Alexnet before it makes any sense to make dedicated hardware IMO.
I really don't understand the thinking behind these hardware-based neuromorphic projects... as you say it would make more sense to prove ideas out in software first, especially for experimenting with more biologically accurate models of neurons.
It seems the time to commit to hardware would be if neuromorhic/spiking/asynchronous designs show worthwhile functional benefits, and need custom silicon for efficient implementation.
From article: > Cause and Effect: If Neuron A fires just a few milliseconds before Neuron B, the brain assumes A caused B. The synapse between them gets stronger. A recent study from Stanford found that it's more complex than this rule, some synapses followed it, some did the opposite, etc.
> A recent study from Stanford Source?