Whomever wrote this article is just misleading everyone.
First of all, they did this for other kinds of similar instruction sets before, so this is nothing special. Second of all, they measure the speedup compared to a basic implementation that doesn’t use any optimizations.
They did the same in the past for AVX-2, which is 67x faster in the test where avx-512 got the 94x speed increase. So it’s not 94x faster now, it’s 1.4x faster than the previous iteration using the older AVX-2 instruction set. It’s barely twice as fast as the implementation using SSE3 (40x faster than the slow version), an instruction set from 20 years ago…
So yeah, it’s awesome that they did the same awesome work for AVX-512, but the 94x boost is just plain bullshit… it’s really sad that great work then gets worded in such a misleading way to form clickbait, rather than getting a proper informative article…
I know it’s a shitpost, but i hate that people interpret carcinisation as a crab being the ultimate piece of evolution.
When learning evolution like algorithms in computer science, one of the first things you learn is strategies to not get stuck in locally optimal solutions (solutions that seem the best when you look at other nearby solutions, but are worse than other solutions if you allow your algorithm to look further away).
Crabs seem like that, it’s just an easy defensive evolution that then stagnates in a form that kind of works. Seeing how many crabs we eat, and how few crabs eat us, it’s obvious that crabs aren’t the actual pinnacle of evolution, just some locally optimal solution that evolution tends to get stuck in :p.