4 ms·
> we are now getting into a regime of computing where exact reproducibility is not necessary. I think that is a myth. Predictable, reproducible and explainable
by periheli0n 5y ago
> we are now getting into a regime of computing where exact reproducibility is not necessary.
I think that is a myth. Predictable, reproducible and explainable outcomes are the holy grail of computing, in particular in AI.
If stochasticity is desired, there are methods to inject it, with precise control of the level of stochasticity and the distribution.
This level of control is absent in analog computing. Device mismatch introduces some randomness, but it cannot be controlled in practice. Instead of adapting the randomness to the algorithm, one ends up adapting the algorithm to the randomness.
Working with analog computers is a fascinating academic exercise. For practical applications, I doubt we’ll see it compete with digital computation anytime soon.
- R0b0t1 5y agoI said exact reproducibility. Every time you add numbers your neurons likely fire in slightly different ways, but the end result is what is reproducible and useful. He's not totally correct because, like I said, the way we think of analog computers right now is likely not going to get us to where we need to be. Noise is a huge problem. Our own neurons do not seem to use continuous voltage, for example, and use pulse density coding, at least for some of their operation.