Computing Experts Unveil Superefficient ‘Inexact’ Chip

[librin.so.1]

How is this different from a flawed CPU?

differece:

flawed CPU
vs.
intentionally flawed CPU in a controlled and specific way

 

[AphexDreamer]

I don't think you guys understand.

The premise is that it gets a SLIGHTLY inaccurate result VASTLY more quickly.

Oh and uh, doesn't crash as a result or freak out!

 

[Perra]

Very cool stuff! Guess it wouldnt work too good in a pacemaker or a nuclear power plant though

 

[Depth]

This is reminding me more and more of the Improbability Drive from The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy...

How does one program and accomodate for 8% failures in the CPU? How does the kernel not self destruct? After 1,000,000 binary strings 80,000 of them will be wrong, how does an OS support that?

 

[xBruce88x]

what happens if it decides it can devide by zero?

 

[Maban]

what happens if it decides it can devide by zero?

Perhaps it will find that it's actually possible.

 

[librin.so.1]

How does one program and accomodate for 8% failures in the CPU? How does the kernel not self destruct? After 1,000,000 binary strings 80,000 of them will be wrong, how does an OS support that?

Looking through OP again, I should say:

NOT a CPU with x% error rate,
But a DSP with x% error rate.

applications for the pruning technology will be in application-specific processors, such as special-purpose “embedded” microchips like those used in hearing aids, cameras and other electronic devices.

Read: DSPs. ^^^^^

 

[qubit]

No, they didn't go to Sardinia to unveil it. Rather, they gave themselves a holiday packaged as a conference, and decided that they should show the world their new toy while having their holiday.

That's just soo cynical. Love it.

 

[librin.so.1]

Perhaps it will find that it's actually possible.

Actually, in mathematics, dividing by zero is impossible in most cases. Yet there are special cases where dividing by zero is acceptable. So to say, it is actually possible.
There, Your joke's been ruined by me. Ain't I'm a stinker?

 

[brandonwh64]

So am I the only one that first thought: very fast processing + variable inaccuracy = illogical AI
Here comes terminator?

Nice avatar

 

[Darkrealms]

Nice avatar

Thanks : )

 

[SteveJK]

I don't think you guys understand.

The premise is that it gets a SLIGHTLY inaccurate result VASTLY more quickly.

Ia m weriting this so fast i cnat write good, i thing you can understand my english but... wht the heck is that?

Do you imagine a world with dudes talking/writing like that? Creating CPUs with Inexact chips, for me, it's an involution.

 

[Frick]

Ia m weriting this so fast i cnat write good, i thing you can understand my english but... wht the heck is that?

Do you imagine a world with dudes talking/writing like that? Creating CPUs with Inexact chips, for me, it's an involution.

As said in the article, it depends entirely on application. Video and voice are perfect examples as they don't have to be perfect.

 

[AphexDreamer]

Yeah when we talk on the phone bits are getting lost, but enough get through we don't even notice this missing bits.

We aren't computers and that is why we can read this.

Fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too. Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny smoe plepoe can. I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg.

So yes its safe to have computers mess up at half the energy cost and twice the speed. It seems like a good idea in certain applications. Btw anyone with a normal IQ should be able to read that.

 

[librin.so.1]

Not to mention, most of the data those chips are targeted to be used on, is in one way or another in analog form at least once before even reaching the said chip. In other words: the data it is targeted to gets distorted at least a little before even reaching the chip.
Inevitably, there is some amount of distortion in such processing, no matter if one uses such a chip, or not. So, there always must be some level of distortion threshold, where it is still "good enough". So, if the total data distortion with such a chip is below such threshold, then why the heck nawt?

 

[Disparia]

If it's good enough, then have at it

However, I've already lived through the early 90's once, don't care relive "modem-friendly media" again (although I do play Winnie the Poo Worhips Satan every now and then... such a classic).

 

[brandonwh64]

As said in the article, it depends entirely on application. Video and voice are perfect examples as they don't have to be perfect.

You are right frick videos and voice do not have to be perfect

Thanks : )

I am an infantry man too

 

[Fourstaff]

You are right frick videos and voice do not have to be perfect

I can almost hear it: "My iPhone 10 has a better video quality than your shitty Samsung Galaxy S9"

 

[librin.so.1]

I can almost hear it: "My iPhone 10 has a better video quality than your shitty Samsung Galaxy S9"

And I can hear myself mumbling: "Why would anyone watch videos on a phone instead of using a computer with a good player, capable of properly decoding bad-ass encodes, on big-ass monitor, is beyond me."

 

[hellrazor]

It's like JPG for computations.

 

[librin.so.1]

It's like JPG for computations.

If You put it that way, now it makes me worry a little.
Jpeg is a good thing when used correctly. Yet, I see jpeg being painfully misused & abused way too often. So when You compare this to jpeg, I start to think what would be, if this technology gets (mis|ab)used at least as half as jpeg - that makes me shiver.

 

[sergionography]

This is reminding me more and more of the Improbability Drive from The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy...

How does one program and accomodate for 8% failures in the CPU? How does the kernel not self destruct? After 1,000,000 binary strings 80,000 of them will be wrong, how does an OS support that?

well i doubt this will be for a general purpose cpu, it could be a feature to enable better performance or so, it makes sense on graphic cards im my opinion but not for cpu calculations or appls

Looking through OP again, I should say:

NOT a CPU with x% error rate,
But a DSP with x% error rate.



Read: DSPs. ^^^^^

or for THIS^

Perhaps it will find that it's actually possible.

well it might assume 0 is 0.000975 or something, and then its possible, but i think this is more like if a cpu miscalculates something it simply doesnt bother to leave it in the cache queue and return it to be reprocessed and simply just passes it, so you end up with much lower latencies hence better efficiency, so its pretty unpredictable what it will calculate

 

[Kreij]

I'm all for it as long as the processors are unlocked.
Would be fun seeing if you could get that 0.25% error rate up by a factor of 10 or so.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I don't think this can work in a CPU, it would have to be part of a GPU design. If the CPU so much as hits the wrong memory address, everything crashes and burns. GPU, on the other hand, rarely has to be accurate.

 

[Fourstaff]

I don't think this can work in a CPU, it would have to be part of a GPU design. If the CPU so much as hits the wrong memory address, everything crashes and burns. GPU, on the other hand, rarely has to be accurate.

That is the whole point of this processor: to hit all as many wrong buttons as they possibly can, without crashing the system.