[HN Gopher] Linear, symmetric, self-selecting 14-bit molecular m...
___________________________________________________________________
Linear, symmetric, self-selecting 14-bit molecular memristors
(2023)
Author : weirdcat
Score : 91 points
Date : 2024-09-12 08:07 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.researchgate.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.researchgate.net)
| myrmidon wrote:
| Takes me back... There was significant hype around those things
| when they first managed to build them at scale (~15 years ago),
| because they were promising for low power, high density
| persistent storage and are also academically interesting: The
| "concept" of memristors was explored over 50 years ago (they are
| passive components that couple electrical charge and magnetical
| flux, just like a resistor does with current/voltage, a capacitor
| with voltage/charge or an inductivity with current/flux).
|
| But I think the main problem was that they never managed to scale
| up the clock speeds sufficiently, even though structure size (=>
| density) was already highly promising from the start.
|
| Maybe in a slightly different history with some discoveries in
| different orders these could have replaced flash memory in SSDs
| completely.
|
| But that whole episode thought me that betting on early
| technology is _hard_ , and always a risky business, because no
| matter how promising an approach looks, if it turns out that you
| can not find the necessary improvements in only a single
| dimension, then the whole thing is kinda doomed and will probably
| never be competitive (=> a highly relevant insight especially
| when speculating about things like novel battery chemistries or
| the like).
| floating-io wrote:
| I remember that too; I was very, very interested, but it never
| materialized. Very disappointing.
|
| That said, I think this is something a bit different, or at
| least a different application. If my translation of the summary
| is correct (I'm not very fluent in sciencese), it's basically
| using them as some kind of matrix multiplier rather than
| memory. Whether they're making use of power-off data retention
| at all was unclear to me, but then I just skimmed it.
|
| Interesting, but I was really hoping for fast, persistent
| memory to appear.
| DrBazza wrote:
| Is that actually the case? Or have memristors just proven to be
| a 'boring' technology that's just quietly replaced other bits
| and pieces that we don't hear about? A bit like graphene was
| supposed to be this wonder material, and now it's found in the
| soles of trail and hiking boots.
| myrmidon wrote:
| > Or have memristors just proven to be a 'boring' technology
| that's just quietly replaced other bits and pieces that we
| don't hear about?
|
| As far as I know, they have no application apart from
| academic toy/reseearch subject right now. And you have to
| consider that there are a lot of niches for storage
| technology that they _could_ have taken over (because there
| is a lot of tradeoffs to make, e.g. latency, bandwidth,
| persistence, density, power consumption).
|
| We might be just a few breakthoughs from those things
| replacing flash memory in SSDs, or revolutionizing neural-
| network accelerator hardware, but I am quite skeptical for
| now.
|
| Note: I still believe that this (and other stuff i'm
| skeptical about) is SUPER worthwhile to research and always a
| huge uphill battle, simply because we have invested hundreds
| of billions of dollars into improvements of CMOS technology
| and processes, and collected over half a century of
| experience with it...
|
| But new tech is to me kinda like a startup-- not every
| technology is the future, just like not every startup is a
| unicorn. Investing is still the right move, but you have to
| be realistic about expectations (which modern media is
| absolutely not)
| chc4 wrote:
| I'm under the impression Intel's 3D XPoint/Optane memory
| was based off the same process used for memristors.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| Yes, but they were never able to get the performance to
| the point where it could be used as regular memory as
| opposed to storage (SSD).
| mapt wrote:
| IIRC, performance was fantastic, but they were never
| able/willing to match the data density and data cost
| improvements in stacked-NAND flash, and without forcing
| themselves into the market at competitive rates, nobody
| wanted to write applications or design hardware suited to
| their unique strengths as low-latency caches.
|
| There is still, to this day, a numerical niche for these
| drives, which is being served imperfectly by either
| normal TLC drives of very large size, SLC cache drives,
| or DRAM expansion cards connecting to the CPU through a
| PCIE bus. Just not at the prices they wanted to charge.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| But wasn't the potentially transformative market intended
| to be "persistent DRAM" for instant-on devices removing
| the distinction between memory and storage, requiring
| DRAM-like speed rather than NAND-like speed ?
|
| I recall their early R/W speed performance projections
| being far faster than what they ever achieved with Optane
| drives.
| wtallis wrote:
| The products that used a PCIe X4 interface with a block
| storage protocol layered on top were never intended to
| deliver the best performance the memory was capable of.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| Sure, but Intel never got to the point of packaging it as
| memory (DIMMs) since the performance wasn't there.
| wtallis wrote:
| Yes, they did ship the DIMMs: https://www.intel.com/conte
| nt/www/us/en/products/docs/memory...
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| Interesting - I wasn't aware, but even avoiding the PCI
| bus the performance must have been lacking as that link
| talks of "memory tiering". I guess this was "mid tier"
| somewhere between SSD and DRAM, which is a bit of a no-
| mans land especially in terms of conventional systems
| architecture ... really just a fast type of storage, or
| storage cache (a bit like a hybrid SSD-HDD drive).
| mapt wrote:
| This was always a strange point of contention - Intel
| denied using memristors. I assume there were some sort of
| patent or trademark issues.
|
| WP:
|
| "Development of 3D XPoint began around 2012.[8] Intel and
| Micron had developed other non-volatile phase-change
| memory (PCM) technologies previously;[note 1] Mark Durcan
| of Micron said 3D XPoint architecture differs from
| previous offerings of PCM, and uses chalcogenide
| materials for both selector and storage parts of the
| memory cell that are faster and more stable than
| traditional PCM materials like GST.[10] But today, it is
| thought of as a subset of ReRAM.[11] According to patents
| a variety of materials can be used as the chalcogenide
| material.[12][13][14]
|
| 3D XPoint has been stated to use electrical resistance
| and to be bit addressable.[15] Similarities to the
| resistive random-access memory under development by
| Crossbar Inc. have been noted, but 3D XPoint uses
| different storage physics.[8] Specifically, transistors
| are replaced by threshold switches as selectors in the
| memory cells.[16] 3D XPoint developers indicate that it
| is based on changes in resistance of the bulk
| material.[2] Intel CEO Brian Krzanich responded to
| ongoing questions on the XPoint material that the
| switching was based on "bulk material properties".[3]
| Intel has stated that 3D XPoint does not use a phase-
| change or memristor technology,[17] although this is
| disputed by independent reviewers.[18]
|
| According to reverse engineering firm TechInsights, 3D
| XPoint uses germanium-antimony-tellurium (GST) with low
| silicon content as the data storage material which is
| accessed by ovonic threshold switches (OTSes)[19][20]
| made of ternary phased selenium-germanium-silicon with
| arsenic doping.[21][22]"
| hwillis wrote:
| > graphene was supposed to be this wonder material, and now
| it's found in the soles of trail and hiking boots.
|
| I mean, that's not because graphene has become a routine part
| of our material repertoire. It has no reason to be in those
| things, does nothing, and is just marketing fuel. We may put
| "graphene" in things, but we are not much closer to using its
| interesting properties.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Right now, graphene is an amazing component of filters and
| composite materials. But only of the very expensive kinds
| of those.
|
| We don't put it on a lot of things. It's expensive as hell.
| ants_everywhere wrote:
| > if it turns out that you can not find the necessary
| improvements in only a single dimension, then the whole thing
| is kinda doomed and will probably never be competitive
|
| I don't know, we've been working on digital computers since at
| least the late 1800s. Sometimes technology just takes a while.
|
| That does make it hard to gamble on it if the time horizon is
| longer than you need to make a profit.
|
| But I don't think we should convince ourselves that a
| technology that takes longer than 15 years to become profitable
| is doomed. If we thought like that we'd still be subsistence
| hunter gatherers.
| myrmidon wrote:
| Absolutely! For the record: I don't think that memristors
| _are_ doomed to be useless-- we 'll have to find out.
|
| My point is just that even with research-tech that sounds
| absolutely _amazing_ (low power, persistent, high density)
| you just need to fail on a single dimension for it to
| basically become irrelevant.
|
| This is also why its so easy for media to overhype research
| results, which (predictably) results in continuous
| disappointments and loss of trust (of the public) in science
| reporting and/or even science in general...
| nine_k wrote:
| Regarding technology taking time: look at LEDs.
|
| - The effect first discovered: 1907.
|
| - First prototype device built: 1927.
|
| - First commercially viable parts shipping: early 1960s.
|
| - Ubiquitous and cheap as an indicator device: 1980s.
|
| - Highly efficient, used for lighting: 2010s.
|
| The principle never changed along the way. The specific
| materials changed quite a bit.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| They never promised high-density. Semiconductor memristors were
| always fated at staying at a much lower density than the same
| amount of capacitive memory. And that's before you get into the
| manufacturing issues and the problem that it loses "data" when
| read.
|
| Those things where hyped out of nowhere, with lots of blatant
| lies making into the popular discourse (like that high-density
| prediction). I don't even know why, because nobody was making
| any serious bet on them. They are a very interesting design,
| that may still get some real-world usage (the manufacturing
| problems are a showstopper right now), but won't ever compete
| with flash.
| mikewarot wrote:
| I think that Memristors are perfect for use as configuration
| RAM for FPGAs and FPGA-like things. Something that you want to
| be able to update, but not frequently, and read all the time.
|
| Of course, then the question becomes one of refreshing their
| state, like DRAM.
| baq wrote:
| > 460x less energy than digital computers
|
| The brain is running on 20W of power and it has the best LLM, the
| best robotics control unit, very good sensor integration and all
| the other exciting stuff which we* want** AIs to have. I'd rather
| have that than nuclear powerplants feeding data centers.
|
| * overreaching a bit
|
| ** also not really true for everyone
| go_elmo wrote:
| Nit: we take 20w of chemical energy not electrical one like
| computers, way worse efficiency compared to solar panels Id say
| im3w1l wrote:
| Our current society converts chemical energy to electrical,
| not the other way round. So its the electrical energy user
| that needs a lossy conversion step.
| tlb wrote:
| Fossil fuel plants are chemical -> heat -> mechanical ->
| electrical. The heat -> mechanical step is the inefficient
| one, sadly limited to ~40% efficiency even with very fancy
| machinery. Most other conversions can be above 90%
| efficient.
| pfdietz wrote:
| The efficiency of gas-fired combined cycle power plants
| can exceed 60% (lower heating value). And their capex is
| just over $1/W. Combustion turbines are amazing.
|
| With a SOFC topping cycle they might approach 70-80%
| efficiency. SOFC with just a combustion turbine (no steam
| bottoming) could exceed 60%. Granted, SOFCs are direct
| chemical->electrical conversion, but their waste heat is
| very usefully hot.
|
| I don't think it's entirely a coincidence that nuclear
| power plants in the US stopped being built about the same
| time combustion turbines (by themselves, without the
| steam bottoming cycle) reached efficiency parity with
| high temperature steam turbines.
|
| (SOFC = solid oxide fuel cell, which operate around 1000
| C.)
|
| ("Lower heating value" is based on energy that could be
| obtained burning natural gas to CO2 and water vapor. An
| additional 10% could be obtained by condensing the water
| vapor to liquid, this is "higher heating value".)
| raverbashing wrote:
| That's why the most efficient use of Superman would be to
| turn a giant crank generating energy
| pfdietz wrote:
| https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2305
| hwillis wrote:
| Actually, no! Producing ATP is ~30% efficient, which is much
| better than premium consumer solar panels. And while that
| heat is technically waste, even if it was more efficient we
| would still generate heat other ways just to keep warm.
|
| What's even more shocking is that conversion of food to
| energy period is ~90% efficient, which is _crazy_ to me. The
| fact that you can _burn_ food and measure the energy given
| off, and that 's _very close_ to how much energy you get from
| eating it- that 's insane.
|
| The efficiency of the human body is all over the place.
| Muscles are only ~30% efficient, and the rest is waste
| heat... but humans walk using orders of magnitude less power
| than any walking robot. As far as I know we have never made a
| powered walking machine that is 10% as efficient as a person.
| The only way we can beat it is with a carefully balanced,
| specially-lubricated pair of legs that is leaned downhill on
| a treadmill and powered by gravity.
| fragmede wrote:
| I'd wait until walking robots are commonplace before
| discounting our ability to make an efficient one. I don't
| think I've seen one in person yet.
| hwillis wrote:
| I wouldn't. We have been trying[1]; humans are genuinely
| shocking in this way. Mechanical systems should have _so
| many_ advantages over humans; springs are 10x better than
| tendons, motors are 3x better than muscles. It 's
| possible humans evolved walking as a _predatory tactic_.
| Even if we develop a super-efficient walking robot,
| humans are efficient at _several_ speeds, and keep that
| efficiency while varying their stride and foot placement,
| _and_ with one of the largest most complex brains of any
| animal. And the ratio of leg /torso length is pretty
| variable among humans! Not to mention the flexible spine
| and swinging hips _should_ be a huge energy sap, but they
| just kind of... aren 't.
|
| Beating human locomotion in the general case is pretty
| far off. It's a combination of body plan, extreme
| optimization of joints and energy storage, and _really_
| good algorithms.
|
| One killer feature of the human body is synovial fluid.
| It's very thin, non-newtonian, self-replenishing and
| contained in particularly low-friction bearing surfaces.
| It's certainly better than 99.9% of mechanical joints,
| because these surfaces filter, heal and re-lubricate
| themselves. Mechanical joints have sticky grease so they
| stay lubricated without maintenance, and work in the
| presence of water and grit. It's doubtful that any joint
| that doesn't heal itself can compete, long-term.
|
| [1]: https://spectrum.ieee.org/durus-sri-ultra-efficient-
| humanoid...
| fragmede wrote:
| A very select group has tried for not very long, but I
| think the most gains in efficiency are going to come from
| giving bipedal robots rollerblades.
| hwillis wrote:
| Absolutely correct, evolution will never ever beat a 10
| cent ABEC-7 bearing. Skateboards really changed
| manufacturing by making a specific size of wildly precise
| bearing incredibly cheap. One day a robot will be able to
| step directly onto ice skates, but meanwhile I'm looking
| forward to the blooper reel because it's gonna be funny
| as hell
| marcosdumay wrote:
| As long as they have decent brakes... Because stairs and
| obstacles exist, and getting over them beats overall
| efficiency almost every time.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| To be fair, our food to energy conversion is so efficient
| because the foods we eat are already in a very energy ready
| state. Our bodies don't bother with stuff that is harder to
| convert.
| hwillis wrote:
| true, but recycling proteins is also pretty amazing.
| These are the most complex machines we know of, elegant
| atomic factories that do the seemingly impossible... and
| you dip them in acid and then you can pop them apart like
| a string of beads, to be reassembled into a totally new
| molecular miracle.
| Aardwolf wrote:
| > and it has the best LLM
|
| It takes many years to train it though
| moffkalast wrote:
| And it's EoL after about 40 years too.
| bawana wrote:
| Not really. Consider private equity's solution to our doctor
| shortage. Import foreign trained physicians without requiring
| additional training. Give them access to an electronic
| medical record eith AI. Teach them how to click a mouse so
| they can copy/paste notes.Use digital real time translation
| to allow anyone to talk to anyone. Have them 'treat' 100
| patients a day. Pay them next to nothing. When some patient
| suffers, allow the legal system to crucify the imported
| 'doctor'. Deport that one and get the next one.
|
| Now you know why you always see new doctors
| ben_w wrote:
| Yes really, human doctors start a medical degree at what,
| 17 or 18? Then it's a 4-6 year medical school followed by
| 3-7 years residency depending on your country and education
| system.
|
| (This is also why LLMs passing medical exams, though
| impressive, has not rendered the profession obsolete: LLMs
| are book smart, but don't have the implicit knowledge that
| we humans only gain from practical experience).
| p3opl3 wrote:
| Should we just not grow robots organically then? We have the
| DNA structure.. why not..
| trextrex wrote:
| The original pre-print is available at:
| https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-3647379/v1
|
| which is probably a less spammy source than the ResearchGate
| link.
| dbcooper wrote:
| What's wrong with Research Gate?
| trextrex wrote:
| What value does it provide over linking to the original
| source?
|
| Any website that constantly asks me to login is spammy in by
| book. It's a for profit website that adds little value other
| than duplicating information from primary sources and
| occasionally mangling pdfs with redundant information to
| advertise themselves.
| SideQuark wrote:
| They also provide a central place to search things, with a
| richer interface than Google scholar, and have centralized
| a significant amount of good sources.
|
| There's a reason millions of researchers have joined. That
| you don't find value or know what they provide is no reason
| others should not learn the value they add.
| p1esk wrote:
| They also show ads:
| https://www.researchgate.net/marketing-solutions
|
| As a researcher I don't see any value there. I'll stick
| with Arxiv, thanks.
| SideQuark wrote:
| That's fine. You also miss all papers not on arxiv. You
| miss published versions of even the papers on Arxiv
| (which are often improved versions), and you miss any
| benefit peer review has on those papers.
|
| I use arxiv nearly every day, and also a few places that
| get things not on arxiv because the majority of papers
| are simply not there. Arxiv is paid for by universities
| paying subscriptions, locked in for five years at a time.
| It's also funded by Simons Foundation (which may not pay
| forever) and Cornell and many individual donors.
| Affiliate groups like professional societies and govts
| pay huge sums to keep it running. Many companies pay 10's
| of thousands annually to be members.
|
| Piggybacking on their money while taking affront at a
| bigger, more comprehensive service, because they dare
| post an ad, seems somewhat short sighted, but to each his
| own.
|
| ResearchGate is the largest academic social network, so
| many use it for that reason. Here's an (2014) Nature
| article on researcher usage of various sites that may
| surprise you https://www.nature.com/news/online-
| collaboration-scientists-...
|
| Since a significant number of job postings for
| researchers as well and communication and networking
| opportunities are widely used on Research Gate, none of
| which is present on Arxiv, you are simply missing likely
| useful contacts and tools for your career. And I write
| this as a researcher for several decades, long before any
| of these were live.
|
| As I said, enough people find value at research gate that
| millions do pay.
| tetris11 wrote:
| I'm surprised they chose Researchgate to publish their pre-
| print, instead of Arxiv
| artemonster wrote:
| Just a bit of context: MRAM exists as an IP for long time, but
| their promise to execute code directly from it didnt really pan
| out because of speed. So it competes against flash to store the
| code that is booted into SRAM and it loses there too because of
| mostly larger area
| cubefox wrote:
| I think memristors are technically more closely related to
| ReRAM (RRAM) than to MRAM. Though ReRAM so far also just
| unsuccessfully competes against NAND flash.
| artemonster wrote:
| Oh, yes, a typo. I meant RRAM
| sroussey wrote:
| This was later published in Nature:
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07902-2
| aappleby wrote:
| This seems waaaaay too good to be true. What am I missing?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-12 23:00 UTC)