“The new device is built from arrays of resistive random-access memory (RRAM) cells… The team was able to combine the speed of analog computation with the accuracy normally associated with digital processing. Crucially, the chip was manufactured using a commercial production process, meaning it could potentially be mass-produced.”

Article is based on this paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41928-025-01477-0

  • NutWrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    Look, It’s one of those articles again. The bi-monthly “China invents earth-shattering technology breakthrough that we never hear about again.”

    “1000x faster?” Learn to lie better. Real technological improvements are almost always incremental, like “10-20% faster, bigger, stronger.” Not 1000 freaking times faster. You lie like a child. Or like Trump.

    • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Here’s a Veritasium video from 3 years ago about an American company making analog chips, explaining why they are so much more efficient in certain tasks. https://youtu.be/GVsUOuSjvcg

      It is not an incremental improvement because it’s a radically different approach. This is not like making a new CPU architecture or adding more IPC, it’s doing computation in a whole different way, that is closer to a physical model using springs/gravity/gears/whatever to model something like the Antikythera mechanism or those water-based financial models than any digital computer.

      Also, uncritically dismissing anything coming from China as a scam is not being resistant to Chinese propaganda, it’s just falling for the US’.

    • kadu@scribe.disroot.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      “1000x faster?” Learn to lie better

      Analogue computers are indeed capable of doing a task 1000x faster than a regular computer. The difference is they do only that task, in a very specific way, and with one specific type of output. You can 3D print at home an “analogue computer” that can solve calculus equations, it can technically be faster than a CPU, but that’s the only thing it can do, it’s complex, and the output is a drawing on paper.

      If you come up with a repeatable and precise set of mechanical movements that are analogous to the problem you want to solve, you can indeed come up with headlines like that.

    • jali67@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Because until it hits market, it’s almost meaningless. These journalists do the same shit with drugs in trials or early research.

      • trolololol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        I agree that before it’s a company selling a product it’s just dreams.

        However this is serious research. Skip the journo and open the nature.com link to the scientific article.

        For the ones not familiar with nature, it’s a highly regarded scientific magazine. Articles are written by researchers not journalists.

        • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          The Nature paper says they’ve done a proof of concept with a few bits, and concluded that they can reproduce it with cutting edge processors. That’s akin to ‘Mice survive cancer longer’ becoming ‘We’ve cured cancer forever’.

          They might be right, but I’m not holding my breath.

    • notarobot@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      It can be 1000x faster because it analog. Analog things take very very little time to compute stuff. We don’t generally use them because they are very hard to get the same result twice and updating is also hard