3 ms·
There is a slight risk but I think it does make sense. There has been papers on the advantage of 5x5 and 7x7 convolution filters and the consensus seems to be t
by Iv 9y ago
There is a slight risk but I think it does make sense. There has been papers on the advantage of 5x5 and 7x7 convolution filters and the consensus seems to be that 3x3 are probably the way to go.
If this was out, right now, it would have tons of use. The field moves fast but it is credible that in one year the field will still uses 3x3 and it is certain that being able to do todays applications for a few percents of the energy used now to do them is going to have business applications.
Research moves fast but user usage move at a different speed. The first GPU came out when people were not sure if we would be doing triangle-based renderings, realtime raytracing, or something more funky.
- deepnotderp 9y agoThat's a fair enough point, but i don't really see why you need to restrict yourself to only 3x3 when you can support others at a slight penalty. For that reason, i suspect it's a winograd convolution ASIC or some similar algorithm.
- Iv 9y agoMy guess is that they need something out fast. The simpler the chip, the better. Adding features means adding test, creating additional circuits and software, etc... For the first version, especially if you have investors who poured a few dozen millions in, you want something that works ASAP. Then version 2 will receive tons of funds to have all the features one can dream of.
- baybal2 9y agoThe penalty is not that slight. As said in the article, Google TPUs struggle to feed themselves data, while their big convolution units simply ends up being a waste of die area