> published a crappy article in Nature because it would never have passed editorial muster at something like DAC or an IEEE journal and now have to browbeat other people who are calling them out on it.
I don't think it's easier to get into DAC / an IEEE journal than Nature.
Their human baseline was the TPU physical design team, with access to the best available tools: rdcu.be/cmedX
and this is still the baseline to beat in order to get used in production, which has happened for multiple generations of TPU.
TPU is export controlled and super confidential -- multi-billion dollar IP! -- so I don't see raw data coming out anytime soon.
Nature papers get retracted every year. I have not heard of DAC papers retracted.
If the Nature paper made it clear that RL is not seriously expected to work on non-TPU chips, it would have have probably been rejected. If RL works on many other chips, then evidence should be easy to publish.
I don't think it's easier to get into DAC / an IEEE journal than Nature.
Their human baseline was the TPU physical design team, with access to the best available tools: rdcu.be/cmedX
and this is still the baseline to beat in order to get used in production, which has happened for multiple generations of TPU.
TPU is export controlled and super confidential -- multi-billion dollar IP! -- so I don't see raw data coming out anytime soon.