China solves 'century-old problem' with new analog chip that is 1,000 times faster than high-end Nvidia GPUs ( www.livescience.com )

"The new device is built from arrays of resistive random-access memory (RRAM) cells.... The team was able to combine the speed of analog computation with the accuracy normally associated with digital processing. Crucially, the chip was manufactured using a commercial production process, meaning it could potentially be ...

SnotFlickerman , to Technology in China solves 'century-old problem' with new analog chip that is 1,000 times faster than high-end Nvidia GPUs
@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41928-025-01477-0

Here's the paper published in Nature.

However, it's worth noting that Nature has had to retract studies before:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal)#Retractions

From 2000 to 2001, a series of five fraudulent papers by Jan Hendrik Schön was published in Nature. The papers, about semiconductors, were revealed to contain falsified data and other scientific fraud. In 2003, Nature retracted the papers. The Schön scandal was not limited to Nature; other prominent journals, such as Science and Physical Review, also retracted papers by Schön.

Not saying that we shouldn't trust anything published in scientific journals, but yes, we should wait until more studies that replicate these results exist before jumping to conclusions.

@petersuber@fediscience.org avatar petersuber , to random

I'm starting a thread on the new administration's actions and positions on to research.

I posted frequently about the actions of his first administration. But I did it on / #X, which I no longer use.

As background to this new Mastodon thread, see my tweets on his first term, which I've collected on a wiki page.
https://cyber.harvard.edu/hoap/The_Trump_administrations_on_open_access_to_research

For updates, watch this space.

petersuber OP ,
@petersuber@fediscience.org avatar

Update, on the order directing staffers to retract pending journal articles that use now-prohibited terms like and (earlier in this thread) …

Bravo to the (@bmj_latest) for calling this order "sinister and ludicrous."
https://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r253

"This is not how it works. Medically relevant terminology and inclusive language follow evidence based reporting standards or are matters of individual journal style and policy. They do not follow political orders. Similarly, co-authors cannot simply scrub themselves from articles. Authorship gives credit and accountability for the work, and an article’s list of authors does not ghost contributors. If authors wish to withdraw submissions under review at a journal, this process is feasible should all of their co-authors agree. However, if somebody who merits inclusion in the authorship group of an article requests to be removed, even with the approval of the co-authors, this is a breach of publication ethics."