smoothsailing18
Regular
The timing of it is sure looking good
and no doubt it will be a great talking point at the AGM to keep the momentum going for us all.
BRN Discussion Ongoing
- Thread starter TechGirl
- Start date
The timing of it is sure looking good
and no doubt it will be a great talking point at the AGM to keep the momentum going for us all.Manny, I like your enthusiasm. Just a small request: until anything is officially confirmed, could you please label your conclusions clearly as opinion/speculation? Sometimes it reads like facts, and that can be misleading.
Yes, he’s testing Akida, and yes he seems excited .. but for now it’s still very much like the broadway “could it be” situation.
Tech enthusiasts sometimes get mind-blown by things that most normals would shrug at … so personally I’m not expecting too much, but I do enjoy his excitement.
Only my opinion. DYOR.
#sandygram | Sandy Abram
This week. One guy took control of 7,000 robot vacuums with his PlayStation controller. Suddenly, what's in their house, was in his hands. Camera feeds, microphone audio, floor plans of strangers' homes. In 24 countries. In 9 minutes. If you ever thought "smart" appliances were clever - think...
Fiendish
Regular
7furry7, I like your pessimism. Just a small request: until anything is officially confirmed, could you please label your conclusions clearly as opinion/speculation? Sometimes it reads like facts, and that can be misleading.
Your relentless daily whinging is more painful than smashing myself in the genitals with a meat mallet.
Only my opinion. DYOR.
Quercuskid
Regular
Mallet with wooden tenderisers or metal?
HarryCool1
Regular
smoothsailing18
Regular
I did make it quite clear it was a prediction, thought or a bet.
When someone says they are “tipping” something will happen, they mean they are predicting, expecting, or betting on that outcome. It’s a casual way of saying, “I think this is what’s going to happen.”
I said. "I am tipping that pretty soon Brainchip will make it a foursome via a partnership with IBM."
Its difficult to see Kevin's findings ignored by IBM and left to its competitors to take advantage of and possibly knock IBM off their perch.
i don’t agree…but what ever you say … I can see from the comments that followed that you’ve got the forum’s “smartest minds” behind you. I can’t compete with that.
In the end, everyone has to decide for themselves what (and who) they believe. I just hope nobody turns around later and says they’re disappointed …because once again, people are reading things into it that will likely be misunderstood in the end. I already learned my lesson… If you fall once into a hole
because you didn’t saw it…can happen … if you are falling twice into the same hole… call yourself how you want… DYOR — my opinion only.
Pom down under
Top 20
Hi Bravo,
This is Francois' favourite patent (oddly only filed in GB and Germany):
GB2640423A Increasing a certainty in a sensor fusion particle filter using fixed lasers without LiDAR properties 20240417
The invention is concerned with a method for confirming at least one property of an object 29 at a given spatial position (X,Y,Z) in an environment 19 of a vehicle 10, the method comprising:
generating property data 27 describing at least one property of the object using a sensor 30 of a vehicle while the object is within a detection range 31 of the sensor; tracking a relative motion 36 of the object with regard to the vehicle and associating a spatial position, as determined by the tracked relative motion, with the property data;
obtaining camera 45 images of the environment outside the detection range from at least one camera of the vehicle;
detecting at least one laser light patch 49, each associated with a respective spatial region (X',Y',Z') where the laser light patch is located in the environment according to the images, and associated with the object passing through a laser beam 44; and
signalling a confirmation value if the respective spatial region matches the spatial position associated with the property data, thus confirming or increasing a certainty that the property data are effective at that spatial position.
The background of the invention deals with using combined camera data and laser data for tracking an object once it has moved outside the range of a first sensor (eg, radar):
Increasing a certainty in a sensor fusion particle filter using fixed lasers without LiDAR properties The invention is concerned with object detection by using at least one sensor of a vehicle for generating property data describing at least one property (e.g. radar radiation reflectivity and/or visible features) as they are observed at an object in the environment of the vehicle. More particular, the invention is concerned with tracking the object after it has left the detection range of the at least one sensor such that a certainty can be increased regarding the question where the at least one property is still effective in the environment outside the detection range. This confirmation of the presence of an object at an estimated spatial position is made possible without the use of a LiDAR, instead a fixed laser device is sufficient.
A vehicle, like a motor vehicle, in particular a passenger vehicle or a truck, may surveil or observe its environment for the purpose of detecting objects that need to be considered while moving the vehicle through the environment. Such an object may be a stationary object, like traffic infrastructure (e.g. traffic signs, road marks, bridges, road lanes), or dynamic or moving objects, like e.g. other traffic participants (e.g. vehicles, cyclist, pedestrians) and/or moving obstacles (e.g. debris moved by the wind and/or toys from children). Depending on the type of object, the vehicle may either use such an object for adjusting its own position (like in the case of road marks and/or traffic signs) and/or the detection result may be used for collision avoidance (e.g. concerning other traffic participants).
For detecting an object, the vehicle may comprise at least one sensor that has a detection range (which may be a predefined detection range) that is directed towards or into the surrounding environment. From measurement data of the at least one sensor, a processor circuit of the vehicle may derive or accumulate property data of at least one such object in the environment. For example, a radar sensor may provide radar measurement data that describe reflection events of radar radiation at a certain direction and distance from the vehicle. As property data, the processor circuit may therefore arrive, that at that point in the environment an object with a certain radar radiation reflectivity exists. Together with such property data describing properties of an object, the position of that object may be measured and tracked. In other words, the property data describing the at least one property (e.g., radar radiation reflectivity or presence of a visible feature) may be associated with position data describing where the at least one property of the object is currently positioned or effective.
A vehicle might not have as many sensors as might be necessary for covering the whole surrounding of the vehicle, i.e. a 360 degree coverage by detection ranges of sensors. In particular, the at least one sensor may have its detection range directed towards a front area (forward driving direction) of the vehicle and in some cases also to the rear area (backward driving direction) of the vehicle. Only while an object is in a relative position to the vehicle such that it is within the detection range of the at least one sensor, the property data for determining or describing the at least one property of the object may be determined or measured or accumulated.
Due to a relative movement or motion of the vehicle with regard to the object (may it be due to a self-motion (ego motion) of the vehicle and/or a motion of the object (dynamic object)), the object may leave or move outside the detection range. From then on, for updating the information on the spatial position where the property data are currently effective (e.g., currently accurate), a motion tracking may be used that may track the relative motion of the object with regard to the vehicle which allows to update said position data associated with the property data. The motion tracking may be based on odometric measurements regarding the ego motion of the vehicle itself and/or on modelling the motion of the object through the environment (e.g. based on a dynamic model). As the object is outside the detection range, the assumption might have to be made that the object continues its own motion through the environment with the same dynamic characteristics (velocity, direction of motion and/or acceleration) as was last observed while the object was still in the detection range of the at least one sensor. In other words, a change of the dynamic characteristics of the object might lead to an estimation error in the motion tracking. Another source of error might be the odometric measurement itself such that the position of the vehicle in the environment might be estimated falsely such that the relative position of the object with regard to the vehicle might also be misjudged. Thus, the position data associated with the property data might not match the true spatial position where the object's properties are currently in effect.
Prior art is known from the publication US11520024B2 describing a LiDAR-based tracking system. The publication US10753736B2 describes a projected pattern of laser dots detected by respective camera devices in a physical environment, and a stereoscopic two-dimensional (2D) object pair based on determining 2D positions for each of the laser dots detected in the first and second images. This solution requires stereoscopic image analysis.
It is an objective of the present invention to verify or confirm that the property data describing at least one property of an object are still effective or valid regarding their estimated spatial position once the object has left the detection range of the at least one sensor of the vehicle due to relative motion of the object with regard to the vehicle.
No, really, you had to be there.
Interesting question:
Could our see-in-the dark radar (SitDR) be used in this application?
Our SitDR provides a capability that no "deterministic" processor can match. Akida's ultra-low latency is essential for SitDR. My guess is that Akida 3's latency will be at least an order of magnitude lower. It will be so fast the electrons will get whiplash.
Last edited:
Bravo
Meow Meow 🐾
I think we can be encouraged and realistic at the same time, don't you?
Kevin’s Symphony + Akida experiments are genuinely exciting, as 7fur7 alluded to.
But I believe context also matters.
On Kevin's LinkedIn, he's outlined that his current PhD is focused on distributed systems / orchestration / heterogeneous compute environments, essentially how different compute resources (traditional CPUs, accelerators, etc.) can be coordinated efficiently at scale.
Symphony is established distributed infrastructure. Integrating Akida into that environment aligns very neatly with:
- Studying heterogeneous scheduling models
- Evaluating resource governance of non-traditional accelerators
- Measuring latency / power / task orchestration trade-offs
- Understanding how emerging hardware fits into institutional compute grids
But Kevin has also explicitly said:
- He can’t speak for IBM’s product plans.
- “The market drives that conversation.”
Given how many shareholders have been burnt by getting ahead of ourselves in the past, many of us are now quite wary. I don't think this is being pessimistic - it’s just being realistic.
We’re all hoping Kevin’s work eventually leads to a contract or product roadmap. But the honest truth is we don’t know what IBM will do (if anything), and enterprise adoption, if it comes via this pathway, would likely take years, not months.
Thank you
smoothsailing18
Regular
Go brainchip
Go IBM
Go Mr Kevin
I can honestly say we will be in every IBM product before the end of the year. Imo.
Humorous attempt for those who's knickers are getting a little twisted.
Go IBM
Go Mr Kevin
I can honestly say we will be in every IBM product before the end of the year. Imo.
Humorous attempt for those who's knickers are getting a little twisted.
Last edited:
FabricatedLunacy
Regular
And every iPhone, every single car and every single Roomba.
I wish. But let’s see and wait. As we have been for a looooong time.
smoothsailing18
Regular
And every iPhone, every single car and every single Roomba.
I wish. But let’s see and wait. As we have been for a looooong time.
All in humour that's my point... don't get to caught up in it all, keep the enjoyment.
Remember abit fun never killed anyone. Or did it
Similar threads
