3 ms·

Sounds like you should be working in this field?

• Animats 4y ago
  No, I'm not qualified. I'm just trying to figure out what the article really had to say. Scientific PR articles are often deliberately hard to read, especially when some minor improvement is being inflated into a world-changing discovery. They have to be read with a viewpoint of finding what they're not telling you. This one is describing something that might be important. If they can fab the things and the noise level and lifetime are acceptable. It's not clear that it gets the same result every time. Analog computers usually don't. But if the number of different levels is small enough, and the results are quantized to a small number of bits after the operation, maybe they can. That's much like the way modems with multiple signal levels work. Or exact repeatability might not matter. People have proposed error-tolerant computing before. Devices can be smaller and lower power if the only have to be 99% right. It's enough of a headache that it never caught on. It's hell for debugging. But it might work for ML, which is somewhat noise tolerant. Things could get strange if this catches on.