I don't understand why even put that HBM on top of the core.
From what I understand, in a typical gpu core you put logic and connectors on one side and innert silicon on the other. So unless you drill through silicon you don't get shorter routing.
Why not put GPU one one side and HBM on the other side of the PCB? This would fix the cooling problem?
Also, with renewable energy sources, the problem is not manufacturing energy per se but getting the energy where and when you want.
For example, you could run a gas turbine in Germany in winter at night during a spike of the consumption and run carbon capture on a desert during the day
In a sense you use atmosphere as battery/transportation system.
I am not saying that this must make sense but this is far more complex than napkin math.
What about using multiple open source projects with already existing tests? You check if results of execution are the same between compiler versions? This should also provide you with a better coverage of various features
Remember that convolution is multiplication in the frequency domain, so this also handles different responses at different frequencies, not just delays
>My intuition is that as contexts get longer we start hitting the limits of how much comprehension can be embedded in a single point of vector space, and will need better architectures for selecting the relevant portions of the context.
We are dealing with multi-headed attention, therefore we have multiple points per token. You can always increase the number of heads or the size of the key vector.
I would say it would make the most sense to have a replaceable entire ram+cpu+gpu assemble. Just have some standard form factors and connectors for external connectors.
This way, you could keep power consumption low and be able to upgrade cpu to a new generation
I don't think so. Biological nitrogen fixation is far too inefficient for this to make sense. Deceased in yield would be too big tfor this to make sense
To give some numbers, just the fixation takes 5.4 more energy, and photosynthesis is 6 times less efficient than solar panels. Moving to biological fixation would also increase water and pesticide usage
This theory is trying to justify MOND, and MOND by itself has many problems. It has problems with explaining the bullet cluster, CMB spectrum, and rotation curves of some galaxies. This paper was not even peer reviewed. This is almost certainly nothing burger
The lose of revenue would not be the biggest problem, they could afford it. The problem would be the loss of applications, most EU based developers would stop supporting iOS and focus on Android. That would hurt
My biggest problem is that this hypothesis does not explain why farming started so much later in the Americas than in Eurasia. From Wikipedia "approximate centres of origin of agriculture and its spread in prehistory: the Fertile Crescent (11,000 BP), the Yangtze and Yellow River basins (9,000 BP) and the Papua New Guinea Highlands (9,000–6,000 BP), Central Mexico (5,000–4,000 BP), Northern South America (5,000–4,000 BP), sub-Saharan Africa (5,000–4,000 BP, exact location unknown), eastern North America (4,000–3,000 BP). " and American civilisation were about 4 thousand years behind Eurasia when it come to technology.