efficient for the temperature it runs at. Jake is correct about the fundamental comparison, but he’s leaving off the part where he expects reversible computing to fundamentally change the efficiency tradeoffs for intelligence eventually, which is essentially “the best way to make use of near perfect cooling” as a research field; I don’t have a link to where he’s said this before, since I’m remembering conversations we had out loud.
it’s relevant in that there’s a lot of room to improve, it’s just not at the same energy budget and temperature. I’m not trying to imply a big hidden iceberg in addition to that claim; what it implies is up to your analysis.
efficient for the temperature it runs at. Jake is correct about the fundamental comparison, but he’s leaving off the part where he expects reversible computing to fundamentally change the efficiency tradeoffs for intelligence eventually, which is essentially “the best way to make use of near perfect cooling” as a research field; I don’t have a link to where he’s said this before, since I’m remembering conversations we had out loud.
But how is “efficient for the temperature it runs at” relevant to whether there’s much room to improve on how much compute biology provides?
it’s relevant in that there’s a lot of room to improve, it’s just not at the same energy budget and temperature. I’m not trying to imply a big hidden iceberg in addition to that claim; what it implies is up to your analysis.