491–496 of 496 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Viable, of course, meaning safe ? lol
No, of course not. We can worry about making it safe after we have any form of it working first. (Also yes, I'm serious.)
(Doesn’t seem like something to move fast and break things on - change my view?)
Is this a “we can technology our way out of anything” stance?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, of course not. We can worry about making it safe after we have any form of it working first. (Also yes, I'm serious.)
Have you done any deep reading on Fukushima? (Doesn’t seem like something to move fast and break things on - change my view?) Is this a “we can technology our way out of anything” stance?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's definitely not talking about worthy endeavour. He's talking about an endeavour reaching the market. I'm sure if Zuckerberg wants to spend $10B on Nuclear Fusion it will happen.
It’s fission , not fusion: https://www.esgdive.com/news/meta-inks-nuclear-deals-terrapo... …and if they do all of this, it’ll be closer to $20B than 10!
Fission is something you can buy today at retail.
Even my poor country has a Nuclear reactor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s fission , not fusion: https://www.esgdive.com/news/meta-inks-nuclear-deals-terrapo... …and if they do all of this, it’ll be closer to $20B than 10!
If all it took to get viable fusion power was a FAANG CEO with $10B to burn, I'd be first to petition for it to happen, and even throw whatever money I can spare onto that pyre.
I'm talking fusion because it's something out there. And in the context of something like the metaverse.
Fission is something you can buy today at retail.
Even my poor country has a Nuclear reactor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've worked for one of Europe's biggest synthetic biology labs and I know lots of biologists are low-key interested, but current players in semiconductors see it as kind of a tarpit. IBM used to have a program using DNA origami for lithography back in 2009, which makes sense as lithography masks are a pain to make. I really wish I know why the program was stopped, but most of the researchers are retired by now. As to…
Would it be comparatively easy to make neuromorphic chips instead of traditional chips? I believe probabilistic algorithms like those employed by LLM's must be more tolerable to working with defects as well..?
However, I think you're right in the sense that neural networks can tolerate dead parameters pretty well, so maybe some kind of AI training or inference chip could be made with more fault-prone methods.
At the end of the day, chips are useless if nobody's willing to write software to run on them. Biologics would likely be good at making weird new kinds of chips, and they'd need a massive edge for anyone to care.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EDIT: It's just not even worth arguing this point, so deleting my original, much longer comment. Abstract taxonomies can claim that Taalas is CIM, but this entirely and utterly misses the point, and misses what makes Taalas' approach special. If you told a room full of chip architects to go build "CIM for AI", they would not build a Taalas-like totally specialized chip, therefore it is not sufficient, and just muddie…
I can't check everything right now, but for example, the divulgational from Rakesh Kumar mentiones "Analogue CIM". And I do not get your rant about "analog computing", which has everything to do with NNs (otherwise, well, prove it): they started with that - they are basically that in fact. Analogue computing is a very great temptation since it would solve the issues of inefficiency in digital NNs. Unfortunately, it h…