News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Artificial synapses 10k times faster than real thing by mdp2021 on Wednesday August 10, 2022 @04:13AM (#32409116)
> they don't emulate even a fraction of the processes you find in their biological namesakes

That is correct. But they are not supposed to: natural nervous systems are just an inspiration. That perspective is only valid in _nervous systems emulations_ - which is just a subset of what we do.

> using the term

'Artificial', in use, stands for "non natural, non spontaneous"; it means "done with an aim" (cpr. Sanskirt arth, artha, arthin, arya; Greek aretē, àristos). Those items are. They are called metaphorically - but evidently so - 'synapses', which means "joinings, interfastenings" (see in engineering 'haptic', "touching"), because they join the elements of a "neural network", where 'neuron' remains "a string" - a "connection significant of a relation".

So: at some point some thought: "What if we obtain something through joining similar elements in a network... Yes, similarly to the other one". It fits, because the model is this model, a model of the natural thing. You have natural neural networks, their model ("just a network"), and such model (of the natural thing) is used as a model (for designing further things).

Re:Artificial synapses 10k times faster than real thing by kalium-xyz on Wednesday August 10, 2022 @04:17AM (#32409139)
In the article they proceed to compare the “artificial” size and performance to the “natural”. I think OP had more issues with that