• A_A@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Original source (free access) :
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/advs.202303835
    So, if I read it correctly, they do not modify the fiber so the training information would be store in the fiber.
    They do not have light that can learn by itself either … instead, what they do is they notice that a very reproducible noise pattern is created and they are training a machine outside of the optical fiber to recognize which part of this noise could be interpreted as information … all of this is in fact very power costly, … and is likely to remain so.
    Edit : I removed my last statement because I don’t want to start bickering about sterile nonsense.

    • Lugh@futurology.todayOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      all of this is in fact very power costly, … and is likely to remain so.

      I’m not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. The direct quotes from the actual researchers say the opposite.

      • A_A@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        and is likely to remain so.

        Well, in fact I don’t care at all for that last statement of mine. So, if this is all you disagree about my reading of the article then it’s fair game for me.

    • BluesF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s significantly less compirationally costly however because you only need to train and run a small, linear output transformation rather than a full nonlinear neural network.