BrainShit
Regular
Speaking of EDGX:
I am somewhat surprised no one has yet commented on the fact that EDGX no longer seems to be in an exclusive relationship with us as their neuromorphic partner:
View attachment 70844
Some posters will want to make you believe that as soon as a company / research institution / consultancy has discovered us, they will only have eyes for us, and that the competition can basically pack up and go home. It is a romantic notion for sure, but alas it is not the reality. The companies and institutions truly convinced of the benefits of neuromorphic technology will often be taking their time to explore different solutions and may end up doing business with / recommending (in the case of a consultancy) either
a) us
b) us and someone else or
c) someone else [as unimaginable that may seem to certain posters here].
While Accenture did praise Akida earlier this year, they continue to research Loihi (
https://thestockexchange.com.au/threads/brn-discussion-ongoing.1/post-428774) and have also been evaluating SynSense’s ultra-low power offerings:
View attachment 70909
Or take ESA, for example: Laurent Hili didn’t restrict himself to visiting the BrainChip booth at the AI Hardware & Edge AI Summit in September: He and his colleague Luis Mansilla Garcia (who were both guests on Episode 31 of the BrainChip This is Our Mission podcast in March) also dropped by other AI chip companies’ booths such as that of Intel (-> Gaudi 3) and SpinnCloud Systems ( -> SpiNNaker 2), as evidenced by these recent screenshots I took of photos he posted resp. reposted on LinkedIn:
View attachment 70846
View attachment 70971
Another example:
We know the neuromorphic researchers from TCS to be BrainChip fans.
Yet, a month ago, in the comment section underneath one of his own posts, Sounak Dey from TCS expressed his regret of having missed the chance to meet up with Petrut Antoniu Bogdan from Innatera at Semicon India 2024 (Sept 11-13). No surprise, really, given that in recent months Sounak Dey has liked numerous posts by both BrainChip and Innatera.
View attachment 70848
Of course our competitors are in the same situation, with BrainChip showing up in unexpected places - so standing still is not an option, all those companies need to continually innovate, and BrainChip is doing just that. Having chosen to go the path of an IP company may pay out in the long run, but of course means leaving part of the addressable market to our competitors.
I’d be very cautious to quantify any lead in months or even years, like some posters have done and still do, despite having no insight whatsoever into the negotiations between any of the companies offering neuromorphic technology and their potential customers - in my opinion, such posts lull us into a false sense of security, which in turn could lead to further disappointment among already disappointed shareholders and provide more fodder for the downrampers should one of our competitors land a juicy contract first, especially in case it concerned one that BrainChip had also been vying for.
And in case you were wondering: No, I don’t have any insider information. I am just a keen observer (such as taking note of LinkedIn posts like the ones above or below), and prefer to draw my own conclusions rather than rely on contributions by anonymous shareholders wearing rose-coloured glasses or deliberately cherry-picking info or even twisting the truth to suit their narrative (be it negative or positive - this happens on both ends of the spectrum). And I encourage everyone to do the same (which admittedly is hard to do for many with very limited time to spare.)
View attachment 70893
Reading between the lines: We are also exploring other companies’ offerings and won’t make any promises.
View attachment 70894
Reading between the lines: We are also exploring other companies’ offerings and won’t make any promises.
View attachment 70943
View attachment 70944
View attachment 70896
No reading between the lines is necessary here, I’d say...
They just don’t spell it out with the words: “You’re in good company” or “Trusted by…”, but to me this is essentially saying the same thing, even though the folks at Innatera cannot pride themselves to already have had their tech publicly validated in an MB concept car.
Innatera and their T1 are indeed quite good. Their mission: to bring intelligence to a billion sensors by 2030.
Innatera's T1 operates using a proprietary analog-mixed signal computing architecture, rather than a fully digital one. In addition to the SNN accelerator, T1 also includes a CNN accelerator and a 32-bit RISCV core with 384 KB of memory for more conventional workloads.
Akida operates digitally. It is a fully digital, event-based neuromorphic processor.
The differences between digital processing and a proprietary analog-mixed signal computing architecture are as follows:
Digital Processing: Digital systems use discrete values (typically 0s and 1s) to represent information. They are highly resistant to noise, allow for efficient error detection and correction, and can be easily integrated with other digital systems.
Digital processing is deterministic, meaning each signal has a specific value at a given time.
Analog-Mixed Signal Architecture: This combines both analog and digital components to process signals. It captures the benefits of both worlds: the precision of analog signal processing and the flexibility of digital systems. Mixed-signal architectures are ideal for applications requiring the conversion between analog and digital signals, such as ADCs (Analog-to-Digital Converters) and DACs (Digital-to-Analog Converters). They are particularly useful in environments where both types of signals are present.
To sum up, digital processing offers robustness and integration ease, while mixed-signal architectures provide versatility in handling both analog and digital signals.
... but we got PICO, TENNs, features such as Vision Transformer acceleration and support for 8-bit weights, enabling larger and more complex models. We also target at a wider range of edge applications, including image processing and audio applications, while the T1 targets applications in battery-powered, power-limited and latency-critical devices.
Crossing my finger we'll win.
Last edited: