3 ms·
Your numbers are meaningless because neuromorphic computing hardware exists in the context of often forgotten spiking neural networks, which actually try to mim
by imtringued 2y ago
Your numbers are meaningless because neuromorphic computing hardware exists in the context of often forgotten spiking neural networks, which actually try to mimic how biological neurons operate through voltage integration and programmable synapses and they tend to be significantly more efficient.
SpiNNaker needs 100kWh to simulate one billion neurons. So the rat wins in terms of energy efficiency.
- ben_w 2y agoSpiNNaker is an academic experiment to see if taking more cues from biology would make the models better — it turned out the answer was "nobody in industry cares" because scaling the much simpler models to bigger neural nets and feeding them more data was good enough all by itself so far. > and they tend to be significantly more efficient Surely you noticed that this claim is false, just from your own next line saying it needing 100 kW (not "kWh" but I assume that's auto-corrupt) for a mere billion? Even accounting for how neuron != synapse — one weight is closer to a single synapse; a brown rat has 200e6 neurons and about 450e9 synapses — the stated 100 kW for SpiNNaker is enough to easily drive simpler perceptron-type models of that scale, much faster than "real time".