undefined

points

[-]

In the sense of interested customers, online discussion, other companies doing the same thing, etc. Of course it takes time to get actual results, but from an outsider's perspective it's surprising that it was basically just their initial demo and that's more or less it so far. Excited to see if they come out with something this summer though!

by mdp202116 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

You are focusing on Taalas, but (specific) analogue computing, electronic NNs, compute-in-memory etc. - the field including the contextual approach - backdate to Rosenblatt.

by coder54316 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Yes, I’m focused on the topic at hand that the person I replied to was also talking about.

The person I replied to was acting as if Taalas was ancient history. I was pointing out it has only been a few months.

by mdp202113 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I'd say the original remark was more general («this approach (baking LLMs/weights into silicon directly) [... as if] worked on in secret») - which is salient, because when I investigated weeks ago, I found a large number of attempts to CIM and to general branching from Von Neumann architecture for the purpose of optimizing NNs implementations in HW.

Universities are studying, startups are proposing - the «approach» is under the big headlines level but quite lively. Not just Taalas, not just their way - which remains remarkable in the scene as the HW is achieved, working, online, available... and amazing.

by coder5437 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

CIM does not bake the weights into silicon. The level of optimization that you can do down to the last transistor when the weights are fixed is on an entirely different level than CIM where you still need general purpose ALUs all over the place.

by mdp20214 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> CIM does not bake the weights into silicon

If that were the extent of the terms, then what could we call "baking the weights into silicon"? Setting parts of the circuits to determined values for multiplication is is like printing a Read-Only Memory. (And you compute at it: Compute In Memory.)

> CIM where you still need general purpose ALUs all over the place

If that were so, then why do taxonomists present analogue computing as part of CIM? Ohm's Law does not constitute an "ALU" the way you intend it.

Simply, I used CIM, "Compute In Memory", for lack of a better term - for "store data there where you modify data", for "beyond Von Neumann's separation of data storage and processor".

by coder5433 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

EDIT: It's just not even worth arguing this point, so deleting my original, much longer comment. Abstract taxonomies can claim that Taalas is CIM, but this entirely and utterly misses the point, and misses what makes Taalas' approach special. If you told a room full of chip architects to go build "CIM for AI", they would not build a Taalas-like totally specialized chip, therefore it is not sufficient, and just muddies the conversation from my point of view. People have been doing "CIM" for decades and yet I've never seen anyone build a totally specialized chip at the scale of Taalas. And yes, you can (in theory) build an analog version of any computer, so of course you can build analog CIM, but "analog compute" is not inherently CIM, so conflating the two is just confusing.

by mdp20213 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I can't check everything right now, but for example, the divulgational from Rakesh Kumar mentiones "Analogue CIM".

And I do not get your rant about "analog computing", which has everything to do with NNs (otherwise, well, prove it): they started with that - they are basically that in fact. Analogue computing is a very great temptation since it would solve the issues of inefficiency in digital NNs. Unfortunately, it has drawbacks which are massive for big NNs. Taalas' seems to be the best compromise.