[HN Gopher] Nanowire Synapses 30,000x Faster Than Nature's ___________________________________________________________________ Nanowire Synapses 30,000x Faster Than Nature's Author : TeacherTortoise Score : 41 points Date : 2022-10-28 20:09 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (spectrum.ieee.org) (TXT) w3m dump (spectrum.ieee.org) | gardenfelder wrote: | The piece is chock full of interesting findings, using terms | biologists routinely use. But, do those terms they use, e.g. | neuron, synapse mean the same thing they do for biologists? For | instances, we know that synapses can be one of excitatory or | inhibitory, and we know that neurons are bathed in a wash of | hormones. Neurons make hormones which serve other functions | throughout the brain. For instance "Neuron-Derived Estrogen | Regulates Synaptic Plasticity and Memory" [1]. How does the | linked work stack up against that? | | [1] https://www.jneurosci.org/content/39/15/2792 | orbifold wrote: | Short answer is no. The field is full with tenuous analogies. | Then again ,,Neural Networks" are also at best metaphorically | related. More accurate existing Neuron models are actually also | plagued by lots of limitations among them that they are | typically implemented in 3 ancient domain specific languages | with lots and lots of hardcoded constants copied from research | papers. | a-dub wrote: | spiking neural networks are interesting though, and new | computational substrates that allow for experiments at larger | scales could produce some interesting results. | | today's sum n' squash (sometimes not even squash) graph | networks were just kind of a curiosity before gpus turned | them into a new very successful computational paradigm. maybe | we'll see something similar with these high element count | optical spiking graphs, even if they aren't great | approximations of the real biology. | | i like to think that a new analog computational substrate (or | mixed analog and digital system) will be what drives the next | leap in machine computation. | superkuh wrote: | All that, more, and it seems like every computational biology | analogy just completely forgets about the most common cell type | in the brain: astrocytes. And then there are things like axo- | axonal transmission that totally blow up the simple models, | https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(22)00656-0 | ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote: | Can you elaborate on how the axo-axonal transmissions blow up | our simple models? I couldn't understand anything from that | summary. | | Would it be the equivalent of edges communicating between | each other in artifical neural networks? | bismuthcrystal wrote: | Biologists just won't allows us to have any fun. It is always | this kind of rhetoric: "what, are you modeling the brain | without considering the influence of <insert obscure type of | cell> on the hormone regulated blood flow around ion pump | circuits during chinese new year neuron firing patterns? you | are obviously bounded to fail..." | | This whole AI field keeps on failing because people like to | overthink things. Did Michelangelo need to know molecular | chemistry to make sculptures? Why do people pretend there is | no artistic component to building AI? Rant finished. | bee_rider wrote: | I don't think this is the case; the whole field of AI seems | pretty healthy at the moment, not failing, and not all that | worried about the inaccuracy of their model (It's only a | model /Patsy -- but it can still host the whole song-and- | dance). | mdp2021 wrote: | > _But, do those terms they use, e.g. neuron, synapse mean the | same thing they do for biologists_ | | They are not meant to. This is not "brain simulation" or | similar - which exists, but is a different matter. This context | is instead about neuromorphic computing, as hardware | implementation of components for Artificial Neural Networks. | And results seem to be remarkable: | | > _They calculated that the synapses are capable of spike rates | exceeding 10 million hertz while consuming roughly 33 | attojoules of power per synaptic event (an attojoule is 10-18 | of a joule)_ | | The comparison with biological neuro-transmission is just | indicative - for trivia, for curiosity. | | -- | | Edit: | | on the contrary, these devices aim to be in a way simpler than | ANN's neurons (far from aiming to be as complex as cerebral | neurons): | | > _By only rarely firing spikes, these devices shuffle around | much less data than typical artificial neural networks and, in | principle, require much less power and communication bandwidth_ | | That is because the underlying aim is _to achieve using a | single photon for communication_ , with an immediate potential | practical use in ANNs. | bee_rider wrote: | We should also note that the article only references the | over-dramatic comparison to biological neurons in passing in | the first paragraph (wonder if it is an "author gets it, but | doesn't get to pick the title" type problem). ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-28 23:00 UTC)