Comment

Comment by stego-tech

IBM initially leads with the more salient point (current architecture designs are hindering frontier computing concepts), then just kinda…relents into iterative improvement.

Which is fine! I am all for iterative improvements, it’s how we got to where we are today. I just wish more folks would start openly admitting that our current architecture designs are broadly based off “low hanging fruit” of early electronics and microprocessors, followed by a century of iterative improvements. With the easy improvements already done and universally integrated, we’re stuck at a crossroads:

* Improve our existing technologies iteratively and hope we break through some barrier to achieve rapid scaling again

OR

* Accept that we cannot achieve new civilizational uplifts with existing technologies, and invest more capital into frontier R&D (quantum processing, new compute substrates, etc)

I feel like our current addiction to the AI CAPEX bubble is a desperate Hail Mary to validate our current tech as the only way forward, when in fact we haven’t really sufficiently explored alternatives in the modern era. I could very well be wrong, but that’s the read I get from the hardware side of things and watching us backslide into the 90s era of custom chips to achieve basic efficiency gains again.

parent stego-tech 1 year ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton