This is one of those things I don't get why people go so gaga over them. The article starts with:

"But it’s not obvious why a system that operates using discrete chunks of information would be good at modeling our continuous, analog world."

OK, fine. But, if my "discrete" modelling is using 64 bits of precision, or, in decimal, about 19 digits of precision, and your analog system on a good day has about 3, how could your analog system even "tell" mine is discrete? It can't "see" that finely in the first place.

Oh, you don't like how it's excessively precise? It is off-the-shelf numerical tech to include precision in calculations. It isn't something every programmer knows, but it's been in books for years.

Oh, by the way, it is also off-the-shelf numerical tech to estimate errors using digital computers. That's going to be a hard trick to match in your analog system. Also, digital systems offer many tradeoffs with regard to error levels and computation time. Another thing your analog system is going to have a hard time with.

"But floating point numbers have lots of problems with instability and such." Most of those problems will manifest in your analog computers, too. Many of those aren't so much about floating point per se as just doing inadvisable things with numbers in general, e.g., if you set up an analog computer to subtract two quantities that come out "close to zero" and then divide by that quantity, your analog computer is going to behave in much the same way that a digital computer would. Ye Olde Classic "add a whole bunch of small numbers together only for them all to disappear because of the large number" is also the sort of problem that you can only get because digital is good enough to reveal it in the first place; accurate adding together millions of very tiny numbers is something your analog computer almost certainly just plain can't do at all.

A carefully crafted analog system might be able to outpace a digital system, but it's not going to be the norm. Normally the digital system will outpace the analog system by absurd amounts.

Now, are there niche cases where analog may be interesting? Yes, absolutely. Neural nets is an interesting possibility. Obviously a big possibility. There's a handful of others. But it's a niche within a niche. There's no problem with that. There's plenty of interesting niches within niches. You can make careers in a niche within a niche. But I don't know what it is about this one that convinces so many people that there's some sort of revolution budding and we're on the cusp of an amazing new era of analog computing that will do so many amazing things for everyone... as opposed to a niche within a niche. We had that revolution. It was digital computing. It is the single largest revolution in the history of man as measured by factors of magnitude of improvement from start to now, and the ditigal revolution is still not done. Analog is not going to overtake that. It doesn't have the headroom. It doesn't have the orders of magnitude improvement possible. That's why it was left behind in the first place. The delta between my kid 3D printing a clock mechanism and the finest Swiss watchmaker who ever lived is still a small single digit number of orders of magnitude in terms of their mechanical precision, and in the digital world we still expect that degree of progress about every 5-10 years or so... and that's slower than it was for many decades.