upvote
> Their numbers look too good to be true

Why? I have not seen anything outlandish for a NN implementation (vs a NN simulation).

> can pull off the error correction

There lie the issues that have not been mentioned, the solutions not explained. Analog computing means: * costly digital-to-analog at the input and analog-to-digital at the output; * sensitivity to environmental conditions such as temperature; * signal dispersion hence the need to boost it in the path.

Maybe checking the patents they registered?

reply
(Moderation, the post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49404099 from SkyPuncher is legit. Automated filter? Maybe you can give us the ability to vouch?)
reply
Like the numbers they claim could literally make LLMs 20x profitable. If it were true then why isn't every AI company trying to buy them out?
reply
Notice that they do not talk about SRAM when they present the M1 chiplets - but you have to store the kv-cache etc. somewhere to run LLMs.

The technology that could run LLMs should be the "Vanguard", but as the homepage says, "the M1 (scope: Edge/Cameras/Drones) is there, the Vanguard should be a reality in 2027".

reply
I'm pretty sure the answer is that their chip is uniquely unsuited for LLMs, probably because the write speed might be horrendously slow. Most likely too slow for storing the context window in multi user workloads.
reply
c.f. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49403836, then from there, you'd need to see a couple of orders of magnitude before it's tractable for LLMs.

Bottom of page linked from HN (currently https://www.mythic.ai/) indicates they're hoping to demonstrate something that could that in 2028 or later, and both Nvidia and Cerebra are looking at 10x'ing models to 10T+ plus in 2027.

So they may never catch up on LLMs.

They're a good fit for the companies they're working with and have taken investment from, ex. Toyota, that aren't doing LLMs.

reply
They plan to be able to run 1T parameter models next year

https://www.mythic.ai/vanguard

Seems big, IF true

reply
My 15 second read of just the front page aligned with you, but when I saw replies pushing back, I went back and loaded News, then cross-verified some of the claims. It's real.
reply
[dead]
reply