undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfooker1y ago0 comments

No, you can absolutely make specialized chips that are orders of magnitude better than the commercial state of the art if you don't care about mass production or operational costs.

I can bet there are superconductor/photonics/topologically different/strange memory/smaller process size prototypes around.

Right now we are getting to the limits of transistor sizes, but even a couple of years ago experimental prototypes of smaller process size were developed years before mass production.

0 comments

11 comments · 3 top-level

almostgotcaught1y ago· 5 in thread

> No, you can absolutely make specialized chips

proof? i'm just like... where? where do you think people are making these chips and using which ovens?

> smaller process size prototypes around

no there aren't. there just aren't. you could hide this in your basement about as easily as you could hide building your own space shuttle (and launching).

fookerOP1y ago

> no there aren't. there just aren't.

There's no hiding anything here. You can find random articles about publicity stunts companies used to try based on these. Specifically when IBM was in the game, and Intel until they got butchered by incompetence.

TwoPhonesOneKid1y ago

> no there aren't. there just aren't.

You do realize we all know it's impossible to have any degree of certainty in asserting the non-existence of something, right?

voxic111y ago

You can always turn a claim into a logically equivalent claim of the non-existence of any counterexamples.

    “For every instance, e equals mc²”

is logically equivalent to

    “There is no instance where e does not equal mc².”

That combined with your belief that claims of non-existence can't be held with any degree of certainty means you believe that no claim can ever be held with any degree of certainty. Which is not a very interesting insight.

1 more reply

artemonster1y ago

This is highly stupid argument, honestly. burden of proof lies on people that make idiot claims

1 more reply

almostgotcaught1y ago

> You do realize we all know it's impossible to have any degree of certainty in asserting the non-existence of something, right?

I love condescension that is so petty it's laughable. As the commenters said below there are very well-understood precedents/principles that allow me to conclude "no" here eg

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

So no it's not "impossible to have any degree of certainty in asserting the non-existence of something", we actually have a whole branch of mathematics dedicated to exactly that (it's called probability and statistics).

1 more reply

LeifCarrotson1y ago· 2 in thread

Well sure, at many orders of magnitude more cost. If you wanted to brute-force RSA, you'd be better off leveraging economies of scale to operate ten thousand current-gen 4nm GPUs running at 2 GHz with air coolers than a single exotic prototype 1nm ASIC running at 8 GHz with cryogenic cooling.

Aside from LCS35, most cryptographic problems are about as easy with two processors that are half as fast as one processor that costs twice as much.

rowanG0771y ago

That is if your problem is parallelizable. There are a ton of sequential problems that are hard or impossible to break up.

voxic111y ago

What would be an example that the NSA would be interested in?

1 more reply

artemonster1y ago· 1 in thread

where you get this nonsense? I am from semicon industry, so please, sources for the claim "orders of magnitude better"

fookerOP1y ago

Look at the history of 5nm process for example, from the first prototypes to mass production.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_nm_process

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

11 comments · 3 top-level

almostgotcaught1y ago· 5 in thread

> No, you can absolutely make specialized chips

proof? i'm just like... where? where do you think people are making these chips and using which ovens?

> smaller process size prototypes around

no there aren't. there just aren't. you could hide this in your basement about as easily as you could hide building your own space shuttle (and launching).

fookerOP1y ago

> no there aren't. there just aren't.

TwoPhonesOneKid1y ago

> no there aren't. there just aren't.

You do realize we all know it's impossible to have any degree of certainty in asserting the non-existence of something, right?

voxic111y ago

You can always turn a claim into a logically equivalent claim of the non-existence of any counterexamples.

    “For every instance, e equals mc²”

is logically equivalent to

    “There is no instance where e does not equal mc².”

1 more reply

artemonster1y ago

This is highly stupid argument, honestly. burden of proof lies on people that make idiot claims

1 more reply

almostgotcaught1y ago

> You do realize we all know it's impossible to have any degree of certainty in asserting the non-existence of something, right?

I love condescension that is so petty it's laughable. As the commenters said below there are very well-understood precedents/principles that allow me to conclude "no" here eg

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

1 more reply

LeifCarrotson1y ago· 2 in thread

Aside from LCS35, most cryptographic problems are about as easy with two processors that are half as fast as one processor that costs twice as much.

rowanG0771y ago

That is if your problem is parallelizable. There are a ton of sequential problems that are hard or impossible to break up.

voxic111y ago

What would be an example that the NSA would be interested in?

1 more reply

artemonster1y ago· 1 in thread

where you get this nonsense? I am from semicon industry, so please, sources for the claim "orders of magnitude better"

fookerOP1y ago

Look at the history of 5nm process for example, from the first prototypes to mass production.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_nm_process

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse