From: Mu In Taiwan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Nov 17 2009 - 05:38:51 MST
> Top 500 has zero -- repeat *zero* -- relevance to AGI.
Perhaps it would help if you could point to the working
implementations of AGI that you had in mind as you wrote this.
On 11/17/09, Alejandro Dubrovsky <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 00:43 -0800, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
>> Top 500 has zero -- repeat *zero* -- relevance to AGI. None. Zip.
>> Nada. It benchmarks a code that is completely orthogonal to
>> essentially all AGI workloads, and selects for systems that typical
>> AGI workloads would scale horribly on. Top 500 is scaling because it
>> increasingly excludes almost all useful workloads outside of an
>> extremely narrow application space.
> That seems like way too strong a statement to me. Firstly, top 500
> gives you something like an estimate upper bound on the performance of
> almost any code you might write. It tells you how much you are giving
> up by not making your code more linpack-like.
> Secondly, some code, eg simple computer vision algorithms, don't look
> that different from linpack, and might scale just as well. It seems
> wrong to call those algorithms as having absolutely nothing to do with
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:05 MDT