Bravo
If ARM was an arm, BRN would be its biceps💪!
Last edited:
BRN Discussion Ongoing
- Thread starter TechGirl
- Start date
Berlinforever
Member
I didn’t pick up the statement that BrainChip will not tape out Akida 2.0 … it was just something on my mind, as this would come with a 5 million price tag (give or take a few millions). Tape out gives confidence to perspective customers - that's why we have done it for the earlier version of Akida. Not planning it now, can be interpreted in many ways. I prefer that they hold out to 30$/share rather than selling at 2$/share. In fact, I would be ok to lose all my investment to be given the opportunity to lead the next Neuromorphic generation.
Kachoo
Regular
Fair assessment but in the end it really depends on the Board and the top holders 4 $ Aud gives them 100$ of millions but yeah its true the value on future earnings is enormous if all things work out. I just find that if this was to be a battle for BRN they would need deeper pockets much deeper you see 33% voted for the strike can you imagine if this path took 3 more years and more dilution. They would be kicked out and abandoned by the shareholders. But yes only 17% voted for a spill stupid of them 100% but more will get upset if things drag too long.
This points to a need for a quick execution of plan. You need a buyer for these chips they need to find a partner merger or an investor with deep pockets to tape chips and sell them. We are at the comercial point finally imo.
Bravo
If ARM was an arm, BRN would be its biceps💪!
Spoiler Alert: Mike Davies does a fabulous job here completely ignoring the fact that Brainchip has a commercially available neuromorphic processor with clearly defined applications and use cases.
Mike Davies, Intel Labs: ‘We’re reaching the boundaries of basic computing’
The man at the head of the world’s largest neuromorphic system is aiming to mimic the human brain to increase computing capacity and efficiency in meeting the demands of a new era
RAÚL LIMÓN
MAY 25, 2024 - 06:05 CEST
The constant increase in network traffic (up 22% last year as compared to 2022, according to DE-CIX) and the new computational demands of artificial intelligence are taking conventional systems to their limit. There is a need for new formulas, and quantum computing is not yet a viable option. Electronics company Intel is one of the most advanced when it comes to the development of neuromorphic systems, a meeting of biology and technology that seeks to imitate the way human beings process information. The firm is joined in the race towards a more effective and efficient processing system by IBM, Qualcomm, and research centers like those of Caltech, where the concept was born thanks to Carver Mead, MIT, Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Neurobiology of Behavior, and Stanford University.
This month, Intel announced that it had created the world’s largest neuromorphic system: Hala Point, with 1.15 billion technological neurons and 1,152 Loihi 2 processors (chips) consuming a maximum of 2,600 watts and with a processing capacity equivalent to that of an owl’s brain. A study published in IEEE Xplore describes it as being more efficient and performing better than systems based on central processing units (CPUs) and graphics processing units (GPUs), the conventional computing engines.
Mike Davies, born in Dallas and turning 48 in July, is the director of neuromorphic computing at Intel Labs and responsible for its latest advances, which seem to be determining the immediate future of computing.
Question. What is a neuromorphic system?
Answer. It’s a computer design architecture that’s inspired by the modern understanding of how brains operate, which means that we are discarding seven, eight decades of conventional computer architecture understanding. We’re trying to understand the principles from modern neuroscience that apply to chips and systems that we can build today to create something that operates and processes information more like how a brain does.
Q. How does it work?
A. If you were to open up the system, the chips, you see differences, some of them very striking, in the sense that there’s no memory: all the computing and the processing elements in the memory are integrated together. Our Hala Point system, for example, is a three-dimensional grid of chips. It’s similar to how you open up a brain and everything is communicating to everything. A neuron will communicate across the brain to another set of neurons that is connected. In a traditional system, you have memory sitting next to a processor and the processor is reading continuously out of the memory.
Q. Is this model necessary because we have reached the boundaries of conventional computing?
A. There’s lots of progress being made in AI and in deep learning, and it’s very exciting. But it’s hard to see how these trends that we observe in the research will continue when you see their increases in computing requirements. These AI models are growing at exponential rates, far faster than the manufacturing advances that are being made. That really is reaching the limit of what basic computer architecture can provide. And also, if we look at just the power efficiency of these traditional AI chips and systems, compared to the brain, there are many orders of magnitude of difference in power efficiency. So, it’s not so much that traditional computer architectures are not capable of providing great gains in computing and AI, it’s more that we’re looking to a broader class of functionality, being able to have computers that operate more like the brain, and do so in a very efficient way.
Q. Is power efficiency the principal advantage of neuromorphic chips?
A. It is one of the main ones. There’s a very dramatic difference between the brain’s efficiency and traditional computer architecture efficiency. But neuromorphic architectures can provide performance advantages as well. We think of GPUs as being incredibly high profound performance devices, but in fact, they’re only high performance if you have a very, very big amount of data to process, and you’re processing that in what we call a batch mode, where you have all of this data available on a disk or right next to the processor, so that it can be read. But if data is arriving from sensors, from cameras or videos in real time, then actually, the efficiency and the power of traditional architectures is much less. That’s where neuromorphic architectures actually can provide a great increase in speed as well as efficiency.
Q. Does artificial intelligence need a neuromorphic system to grow?
A. That’s what we believe. Of course, it’s research. It’s unclear today exactly how to deploy this commercially. There are many research problems still to be solved in terms of the software, the algorithms. Many of these conventional approaches don’t run natively on neuromorphic hardware, because it’s a completely different programming. We do believe that this is the right path forward to achieve the gains that we need in power efficiency and in performance for these kinds of workloads. But it is still an open question.
Q. Will we see a neuromorphic chip in a personal computer or smart phone?
A. I think so, it’s a matter of time frame. You won’t see that in the next year, but the technology will mature and I think that you will see it deployed into edge devices [data processing that takes place close to its origin to ensure speed and efficiency] or mobile devices, autonomous vehicles, drones or your laptop. Our Hala Point device is designed for the data center. It’s a box the size of a large microwave. But if we look at nature, you find brains of all sizes. Insect brains are very impressive, even at that small scale. And then you have, of course, the human brain. We are pursuing both directions of that research. We believe that the commercialization will happen in the edge devices first, but there’s a need to keep pushing and doing research at the large scale.
Q. When will they be ready?
A. It’s hard to predict because there are still open research questions. At the data center, it’s probably something like five years. We also see in the future that everything will need to operate off of battery power, and the power savings that neuromorphic can offer are extremely important. There are also somewhat less obvious applications, like wireless base stations for cell phone infrastructure. We are working with Ericsson to better optimize communication channels.
Q. Are neuromorphic systems and quantum computing complementary?
A. I think they’re complementary in some respects. Where they’re very different, I would say, is in the time frame. Quantum computing is looking at device-level manufacturing innovation and trying to scale that up. It’s clear that what it offers is very noble and impressive. It’s also very unclear what the programming model of quantum will be, what kinds of problems or kinds of workloads it will support once it can be scaled all the way up. Neuromorphic computing is available today, and it’s very good for AI type of workloads. But there is, interestingly, an intersection in the application space of quantum and neuromorphic. That is where it’s interesting to think about solving hard optimization problems and allowing people to experiment and prototype and learn how to program these kinds of systems.
Q. Could we see neuromorphic systems in our brain?
A. There are some researchers interested in the neuroprosthetic application, which would mean trying to repair problems, pathologies in the brain where there has been some loss of function to bring back control over your body. I would say that is very early-stage research, but I think in the long term, it is a very natural application of neuromorphic computing, because this architecture is behaving just like neurons, so it would naturally speak the language of our brain.
Q. What kinds of brains are equal to the systems that are currently available?
A. In terms of the numbers of neurons, it’s similar to an owl brain. But if you focus on the cortex, which is where much of the higher-order intelligence happens, it’s about the size of a capuchin monkey cortex. Many of us in this research field have the human brain in mind as a kind of vision for the scale of system we’d like to build. But we’re not trying to get there too fast. We need to know how to make it useful. And that’s why this system is still a research tool so that we can continue to experiment with it.
Q. In what concrete cases are these systems more effective?
A. In finding the best path through a map we see speed-ups of up to 50 times, compared to the best conventional solvers. In terms of energy, they can be reaching levels of 1,000 times more [efficient].
Q. Could Europe take advantage of this new technology to gain sovereignty on making chips, as it’s currently dependent on other continents?
A. If we look into the future, there’s much innovation that we will need over the long term if we’re to achieve the size and the efficiency of real brains in nature, which remains incredibly impressive. There’s still a long way to go, and to get there we do need manufacturing innovation. There needs to be new devices and new memory technology that’s going to make truly brain-like chips technologically possible. It’s not clear that any one geographic region has an advantage in this domain, so it is an opportunity. High technology always involves innovation and nothing ever stays static. There’s always a need for new breakthroughs and it’s unpredictable where these may come from.
Last edited:
DingoBorat
Slim
"2.Antonios comments a customer can buy the whole architecture licence and we would be profitable over night does that involve merger Aquisitions? I have not heard of a 20+ million dollar IP licence"
I think the comment from Antonio, was in relation to a possible "5 year" architectural licence?
It could not have possibly had anything at all, to do with a merger or acquisition (buyout), as this would be putting forward information, about such an event that was outside the scope of the AGM.
It could however, be for an "exclusive" licence, in a particular technological product field (say mobile phones or humanoid robots).
I can see exclusivity in a particular sector, as being a strong selling (or buying) point, but the player would have to be very high level, for BrainChip to consider it.
We are dealing with the largest technological Company's on the planet, so it's no "pie in the sky" idea and fits what we know.
Kachoo
Regular
Yeah I see an exclusive licence would have to be the path I mean when you limit you market you need to be rewarded so then you can't tape chips to compete is my question how that works ? Limits your market. Unless it's not explained well.
DingoBorat
Slim
It's only market limiting in one sector and if that one player is big enough, it doesn't matter...
Say, an "Apple" for mobile phones.
Frangipani
Regular
Hi FJ-215,
the article you linked to refers to a different Fraunhofer Institute, Fraunhofer IPMS in Dresden, whereas the Fraunhofer Institute shown in the video is Fraunhofer HHI (Heinrich-Hertz-Institut) in Berlin. (There are 76 Fraunhofer Institutes in total.)
At the very end of the video, there is a reference to a research paper, that I posted about a few weeks ago:
https://thestockexchange.com.au/threads/brn-discussion-ongoing.1/post-417987
And thanks to the video we now know what neuromorphic hardware the researchers used, even though they didn’t reveal it in their paper!
I am confusedHi FJ-215,
the article you linked to refers to a different Fraunhofer Institute, Fraunhofer IPMS in Dresden, whereas the Fraunhofer Institute shown in the video is Fraunhofer HHI (Heinrich-Hertz-Institut) in Berlin. (There are 76 Fraunhofer Institutes in total.)
At the very end of the video, there is a reference to a research paper, that I posted about a few weeks ago:
View attachment 63664
https://thestockexchange.com.au/threads/brn-discussion-ongoing.1/post-417987
View attachment 63666
View attachment 63667
View attachment 63665
And thanks to the video we now know what neuromorphic hardware the researchers used, even though they didn’t reveal it in their paper!
Doesn't look same
Frangipani
Regular
Oh Yes it does! Thank you!
. 
Is this the new tendency, are people finally waking up? 
Frangipani
Regular
Hi FJ-215,
the article you linked to refers to a different Fraunhofer Institute, Fraunhofer IPMS in Dresden, whereas the Fraunhofer Institute shown in the video is Fraunhofer HHI (Heinrich-Hertz-Institut) in Berlin. (There are 76 Fraunhofer Institutes in total.)
At the very end of the video, there is a reference to a research paper, that I posted about a few weeks ago:
View attachment 63664
https://thestockexchange.com.au/threads/brn-discussion-ongoing.1/post-417987
View attachment 63666
View attachment 63667
View attachment 63665
And thanks to the video we now know what neuromorphic hardware the researchers used, even though they didn’t reveal it in their paper!
By the way, the first paper cited in the Fraunhofer HHI video (co-authored by Osvaldo Simeone and two other researchers from King’s College London) is actually not more than a decade old:
It was just a typo…
Last edited:
CHIPS
Regular
I think so too. I would rather wait 5 more years and live with the increasing SP than get 2.50$ now.
JDelekto
Regular
It looks like an opened Raspberry Pi device, with one end of the ribbon cable attached to the PCIe port, and the other to the BrainChip PCIe card. One can tell from the outline of the Akida board that it is the same shape too. Unfortunately, they didn't photograph the side that had the AKD1000 chip on it, but the outline and size are nearly identical in that shot. I was surprised by how small the Akida PCIe board was when I received it.
I can't help but wonder when I see videos, papers, and blog posts that are intentionally vague about the neuromorphic hardware being evaluated or used, that the people publishing these feel as if they have stumbled upon a goldmine and want to share their profound advancements while at the same time keeping their competitive edge. Of course, with BrainChip being the only commercially available IP right now, it makes it a little easier to venture a more accurate guess. Pixel-hunting the code on the computer screen in the video is the real capper.
It's a stark difference between those companies touting the use of existing AI accelerator hardware from companies, whether they are public or privately held. I think those companies brave enough to embrace neuromorphic technology for their future will be very glad they did.
White Horse
Regular
What a load of garbage.!!!!!
Kachoo
Regular
It's an opinion and quite possible Mate.
I'm not saying that's the best action for the bigger returns but it's a quicker path for the ones with 50 million plus shares to cash out if they want.
50+ Million shares ? So the top 6 shareholders?
Kachoo
Regular
Well I'm just staing that if Anil Peter and Robert were and any of the top 10 wanted out or decieded to sell it would go through.
I mean They have worked endlessly for over many many years to get to this point. We are seeing the fruits come but it's still could be a fight.
I'm 100 % sure if deeper pockets like Intel Arm or Nvidia had the technology in their arsenal the chip to market would be quicker. BrN is but a small company from Australia.
Not everyone is money driven but when they get exhausted they may do this.
And all I stated that we have lost 3 marketing sales staff. It's not the end over the world or negative in Company value but we have been growing on the RnD side with Tony Lewis and the highlighted engineering growth.
If we merged or sold whatever the need for the sales would be redundant. The brains engineers you need them.
Some things really point to a sale but that's it. I know that they say what they say but that's just that talk and their job to the end goal which we really don't know.
I have worked with companies saying one thing to staff and the exact opposite happens man its normal you need to keep your eye and ears open.
Similar threads
