• Lugh@futurology.todayOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Silicon computing is starting to run up against hard limits when it comes to energy usage. Bitcoin mining is currently using 2% of the USA’s energy. Data Centers are projected to be using a third of Ireland’s electricity output by 2026.

    However it seems next-generation solutions are on the horizon, and this is one of them. Transitioning computing to energy-efficient new technologies is another front in the war to slow climate change.

    • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      The solution is right in front of us. Stop burning fossil fuels. We could do it tomorrow, but we don’t want too bcz it would lower people’s quality of life, and make billionaires less rich, heavy emphasis on the later statement.

  • A_A@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Original source (free access) :
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/advs.202303835
    So, if I read it correctly, they do not modify the fiber so the training information would be store in the fiber.
    They do not have light that can learn by itself either … instead, what they do is they notice that a very reproducible noise pattern is created and they are training a machine outside of the optical fiber to recognize which part of this noise could be interpreted as information … all of this is in fact very power costly, … and is likely to remain so.
    Edit : I removed my last statement because I don’t want to start bickering about sterile nonsense.

    • BluesF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s significantly less compirationally costly however because you only need to train and run a small, linear output transformation rather than a full nonlinear neural network.

    • Lugh@futurology.todayOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      all of this is in fact very power costly, … and is likely to remain so.

      I’m not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. The direct quotes from the actual researchers say the opposite.

      • A_A@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        and is likely to remain so.

        Well, in fact I don’t care at all for that last statement of mine. So, if this is all you disagree about my reading of the article then it’s fair game for me.

  • Mango@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    8 months ago

    Technobabble detectors reading very high. This article is meaningless.

    • Lugh@futurology.todayOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Technobabble detectors reading very high

      Interesting response. Do you have some particular physics qualification that gives you confidence to say this in response to the Physics Professor at Tne Leibniz Institute of Photonic Technology who is making these claims?

      • Mango@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        8 months ago

        Whew, straight in with the authority fallacy! How long did you defend your belief in Santa Claus?

        • fr0g@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yes, the idiotic fallacy of giving greater weight to the opinion of an authority at the subject being discussed. It is no match to the logical chad move of giving weight to the opinion of a random internet commentator who claims something is nonsense without giving any reason or explanation why.

          • Mango@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            While it’s fair to point out I have no reasons myself, you got the fallacy wrong. You didn’t just give greater weight to their position. You hinged your entire position on theirs. You’re defending something you don’t even understand yourself.

            • Lmaydev@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Just because an argument uses a fallacy doesn’t make its conclusion incorrect. Otherwise known as the fallacy fallacy.

              The person they are referring to most certainly has better knowledge on the subject than you.

            • fr0g@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              You hinged your entire position on theirs.

              I did what? That was my first post in this entire thread.

        • Gaia [She/Her]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          It’s not a fallacy to appeal to an independent intellectual authority. Do you disregard all research papers because they’re tainted by authority? Photonic computing is very real, and an ignorance of it doesn’t make you an expert on the validity of a claim. Perhaps you could try reading more to correct this issue. How long have you worn that fedora without washing it?

    • Endward23@futurology.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Check it out here: https://www.uni-jena.de/en/all-news/neural-networks-made-of-light

      And there is a reference at the end:

      B. Fischer, M. Chemnitz, Y. Zhu, N. Perron, P. Roztocki, B. MacLellan, L. Di Lauro, A. Aadhi, C. Rimoldi, T. H. Falk, R. Morandotti: Neuromorphic Computing via Fission-based Broadband Frequency Generation. Adv. Sci. 2023, 10, 2303835. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202303835

      This magazine has a good impact factor as far as a quick search shows.

      • Mango@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Well that’s dramatically better than techradar. It’s hard to believe human beings living regular lives are doing this kind of thing. How did we get here?