Radiant Computer

And as with the text, the art feels AI generated. In fact I even think it's quite beautiful for what it is, but it reminds me of "dark fantasy" AI generated art on Tikok.

I have nothing against an aesthetic vision being the kernel of inspiration for a computing paradigm (I actually think the concept art process is a fantastic way to ignite your visionary mojo, and I'm flashing back to amazing soviet computing design art).

But I worry about the capacity and expertise to be able to follow through given the vagueness of the text and the, at least, strongly-suggestive-of-AI text and art, which might reflect the limited capacity and effort even to generate the website let alone build out any technology.

There are reasons that current architecture are mostly similar to each other, having evolved over decades of learning and research.

> Perhaps model where processing and memory are one, A:very simple core per 1k of SRAM per 64k of DRAM per megabytes of flash,

To serve what goal? Such a design certainly wouldn’t be useful for general purpose computing and it wouldn’t even serve current GPU workloads well.

Any architecture that requires extreme overhauls of how software is designed and can only benefit unique workloads is destined to fail. See Itanium for a much milder example that still couldn’t work.

> machines with 2^n cores where each core has a direct data channel to every core with its n-bit core ID being one but different (plus one for all bits different).

Software isn’t the only place where big-O scaling is relevant.

Fully connected graph topologies are great on paper, but the number of connections scales quadratically. For a 64-core fully connected CPU topology you would need 2,016 separate data buses.

Those data buses take up valuable space. Worse, the majority of them are going to be idle most of the time. It’s extremely wasteful. The die area would be better used for anything else.

> A n=32 system would have four billion cores

A four billion core system would be the poster child for Amdahl’s law and a great example of how not to scale compute.

Let’s not be so critical of companies trying to make practical designs.

The task that has been set is gigantic. Despite that, they've decided to make it even harder by designing a new programming language on top of it (this seems to be all the work done to date).

The hardware challenge alone is quite difficult. I don't know why that isn't the focus at this stage. It is as-if the author is suggesting that only the software is a problem, when some of the biggest issues are actually closed hardware. Sure, Linux is not ideal, but its hardly relavent in comparison.

I think this project suffers from doing too much abstract thinking without studying existing concrete realities.

I would suggest tackling one small piece of the problem in the hardware space, or building directly on some of the work others have done.

I don't disagree with the thesis of the project, but I think it's a MUCH bigger project than the author suggests and would/will require a concentrated effort from many groups of people working on many sub-projects.