3 ms·

I don't get the negativity. This is indeed an emerging field, so just going to throw in a few examples: - Google using RL for chip layout optimization [1] - S

I don't get the negativity. This is indeed an emerging field, so just going to throw in a few examples: - Google using RL for chip layout optimization [1] - Stanford profs optimizing lenses end to end with image processing [2] As for the "diffractive deep neural network" paper it is not really a deep network as they don't implement the non-linearities in the optical domain. That still is the hard bit, so maybe the monocle is not realistic, but fortunately there are ways it can still speed up computation. There is a general consensus that GPU-s enabled the current deep learning revolution and perhaps as argued by the Hardware Lottery paper [3] backprop is really just the current lucky ticket. So why not try to evolve hardware with ML for other algorithms too? As for the questions raised, I do want to know your answer to this: > a question for computer scientists, what single question would you ask if you have a dedicated computer that was [that multiplier] faster? [1] https://ai.googleblog.com/2020/04/chip-design-with-deep-reinforcement.html https://ai.googleblog.com/2020/04/chip-design-with-deep-rein... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJdsxXOfqvw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJdsxXOfqvw [3] https://hardwarelottery.github.io https://hardwarelottery.github.io

tyingq 5y ago
>I don't get the negativity. I suppose my response looks negative. What drove that was that the writeup seemed to be "high confidence in something very unusual[1]" coupled with "very little detail on what he thinks would accomplish that[2]". [1] "Million times faster" "with today’s technology" "40 years of performance gain" [2] I gathered only analog vs digital, light instead of electricity, and some sort of analog/optical FPGA. I felt negative only in the sense that the confidence seemed very high, but I couldn't see any detail that seemed to support it, or enough detail to search elsewhere. Especially with all the references that we could do it now. > a question for computer scientists, what single question would you ask if you have a dedicated computer that was [that multiplier] faster? Assuming climate change is the largest threat looming in the near future, I suppose better modeling and prediction on what to do, and when.

tyingq 5y ago

>I don't get the negativity. I suppose my response looks negative. What drove that was that the writeup seemed to be "high confidence in something very unusual[1]" coupled with "very little detail on what he thinks would accomplish that[2]". [1] "Million times faster" "with today’s technology" "40 years of performance gain" [2] I gathered only analog vs digital, light instead of electricity, and some sort of analog/optical FPGA. I felt negative only in the sense that the confidence seemed very high, but I couldn't see any detail that seemed to support it, or enough detail to search elsewhere. Especially with all the references that we could do it now. > a question for computer scientists, what single question would you ask if you have a dedicated computer that was [that multiplier] faster? Assuming climate change is the largest threat looming in the near future, I suppose better modeling and prediction on what to do, and when.