I can understand your objection now. Thank you. For me the logic of the statement came the other way round: we've got things that are focused on a particular t

I can understand your objection now. Thank you. For me the logic of the statement came the other way round: we've got things that are focused on a particular task (accelerators) - because those exist it is clear that the general purpose things we have at the moment (CPUs) are not efficient at everything - if they were we wouldn't have accelerators (or they would be what we were using for CPUs). Sure, we can't have a general purpose vehicle that is suitable for all tasks, but I can imagine someone creating a general purpose glue that just sticks anything. Perhaps there is a processor design that can be efficient at every task - this article seems to be encouraging us to think about that problem.