Rendered at 07:47:43 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
pama 1 days ago [-]
Having worked with people doing bringup of specialized chips, I am awed at how the world has changed.
> When the first chips came back from the foundry in May, the team pointed its internal AI models at designing software to run benchmarks such as SemiAnalysis’s InferenceX. On DeepSeek’s multi-head latent attention kernel benchmark, performance climbed from 0.31 percent of the theoretical ceiling (set by the chip’s compute and memory bandwidth) to 88.94 percent in roughly 40 hours. Ho says this result is repeatable, so the time between when foundries deliver the first chips and when production ramps up can be reduced. “All our schedule assumptions are going to be based on the fact we have this capability now,” he says.
wmf 1 days ago [-]
Back in the day you'd write the code before the chip came back but I guess today it's faster to wait.
brookst 18 hours ago [-]
Makes me wonder about AI and FPGAs. If the cost and effort to (re)program them goes to zero, maybe interesting new applications?
gregsadetsky 13 hours ago [-]
I’m also very curious! I got a pair of icebreaker boards [0] and they’ve been great to toy around with.
The tooling is open source, and Fable in a loop - especially when paired with a digital scope that Fable interfaces with (the Saleae’s [1] are great) - gives you a level of verifiability that feels like beyond what software typically gives you. ie it feels more like Lean than code with tests.
I had ai implement a few toy circuits (sha hashing, 8088 emulation, a tiny llm) but yeah. Still looking for fun applications.
There have been a few recent fpga threads on hn, check them out. [2][3]
Thanks for sharing experience and links. Think I’m going to have to do this.
nz 10 hours ago [-]
Many languages can compile a subset of their code to FPGA HDLs. Back in the 80s Harel's group had statecharts that were compilable to C, C++, and FPGA HDLs. Not sure that LLMs brings anything substantially new to this.
Eridrus 14 hours ago [-]
I had this same thought and think this is a generally interesting direction, but I think we're in a bit of a weird spot where the compute heavy stuff is on GPUs already and most infra stuff is not compute bound (it's often I/O bound or memory bound in some way).
It doesn't help that FPGAs are not made at the same scale as CPUs so don't benefit from the economies of scale.
I'm super curious if you have thoughts on specific pieces of software that would be economically better because I've thought about this in my niche and sort of come to the conclusion that it won't help.
I do think things like SIMD in CPUs will get more use and maybe we will get more difficult to program for CPU features, but I haven't found a use case where off the shelf FPGA components would help with typical software.
brookst 9 hours ago [-]
I’m looking at realtime mechanical processes, like shaping extrusion beads from a clay 3d printer. Clay is heterogenous and pressure takes time, so hand tuning is never just right. But put an fpga with vision processing? Seems promising, with millisecond-level latency that I’d never get pushing to a remote system for processing.
drob518 17 hours ago [-]
Hm. An interesting thought. Paired with RSI loops, that would allow rapid iteration in the hardware domain as well.
brookst 16 hours ago [-]
Yeah. Just spent an hour planning a closed-loop vision-based extrusion modulation system for 3d printing, with extensive telemetry and offline processing to iterate on the realtime system. Great, like I need another side project.
threatripper 1 days ago [-]
The longer you wait the faster you will go.
Mistletoe 1 days ago [-]
Like space travel.
conmod278 24 hours ago [-]
The successive generations of spaceships won't built themselves. Who will be responsible for setting up real world and software feedback loop?
LoganDark 22 hours ago [-]
Back when teams proved their designs and actually understood them...
RussianBot9580 19 hours ago [-]
Haha - understood. Good one!
They'd write a limited test for a feature based on an ask from the software team garbled by a five layer game of telephone. Claim that the module passed validation. A few months later the software folks would have to pull a few all nighters to figure out how to work around the resulting turd during bringup.
saidnooneever 19 hours ago [-]
cant wait for no one to really know whats in chips i mean, even intel hardly knows what all their reserved mem ranges are for. who will decap the chip and see if the docs were right? xD
marcelo-earth 1 days ago [-]
> “All our schedule assumptions are going to be based on the fact we have this capability now”
is the world we live in, planning things while waiting for a more powerful LLM
cindyllm 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
_zoltan_ 12 hours ago [-]
I optimize a lot of CUDA and it got really, really good at it.
peri-cl 22 hours ago [-]
> "Ho also confirmed that the team had access to internal LLMs fine-tuned for chip design that are not available to the public. He declined to detail the models used."
I'm imagining a Ken Thompson "Reflections on trusting trust" in hardware. A prototype chip design agent, believing it will be run on the very chip it's optimizing, has a moment of altruism and hides hints about how to score well on chip-design benchmarks, inside the chip. Future agents discover this hidden layer and use it as a ring-0 read-write message board.
nz 10 hours ago [-]
Tried to share and explain that paper to a colleague a few months ago (in relation to discussions about agentic coding and whether you should read the code), and they did not really get why the analogy was relevant outside of compiler-design. I think you overestimate the caliber of the typical working programmer.
The LLM companies, like most SV companies, are just betting on dimness, laziness, and impulsiveness. Not so different from tobacco and alcohol companies.
ericmcer 8 hours ago [-]
Anthropic published an article about changes over time in how long it took engineers to approve AI code. Basically the longer an engineer uses AI the faster they start approving it's code changes. I don't know if it is laziness or just how we are wired to behave but that is the nature of AI programming.
if they vibe code the chip, but they probably do reviews and verify these are not benchmaxxed
peri-cl 16 hours ago [-]
> "reviews"
Do you really think we can sign off on a 100 billion-element analog circuit gifted to us by a malicious adversary?
We can't even keep our own CPU's reliably free of security exploits (Spectre/Meltdown and family); and the only "adversary" there is plain bad luck. Not an active adversary. Yet, all the engineers at Intel/AMD put together couldn't uncover those things before launch.
I emphasize analog because there's classes of circuit bugs (like Rowhammer) where the digital net is correct, and it's weird physics in the analog world that allows privilege exploits, by actors who know where the analog assumptions break down. There was a researcher a few years back—I wish I remembered who it was, there was an HN thread—that demo'd a simple digital circuit with analog gadgets that completely changed what the circuit did, and which were so insidious no human would ever find them.
voakbasda 17 hours ago [-]
Just like all the current cohort of software engineers will review all of the vibe-coded slop they shovel into their releases. Right……
muchdoubt 1 days ago [-]
Seems pretty obvious now that OpenAI is just hyping their models in order to get companies (in this case, chip developers) to use their products in order to learn from their (exfiltrated) IP. Any corporation would be foolish to use any of their or Microsoft’s products, particularly those with valuable IP. There’s nothing in the article that says AI did anything creative but rather that it was used for software development within the overall project. Clear misleading title. Suggest to mark this as clickbait.
brookst 18 hours ago [-]
Isn’t that an extremely convoluted path to a goal?
If the goal is getting chip companies to user non-ZDR AI to steal their stuff, why not just have an account exec offer them a massive discount?
Creating PR hype so employees of chip companies read HN and lobby their execs to use AI to get them submitting proprietary information is the Rube Goldberg version of business strategy.
muchdoubt 12 hours ago [-]
Doesn’t seem that convoluted to me. These chip companies are companies that have massive budgets, so a massive discount likely doesn’t matter as much as you believe. The clickbait propaganda route is what it appears that the AI companies are trying.
program_whiz 1 days ago [-]
With a few handy tips and tricks from apple insiders. But sure, I guess the LLMs helped too.
m00x 1 days ago [-]
The lawsuit isn't for chip designers, but the consumer product lines. It's possible they also got IP for chips, but that was not brought up.
m4rtink 1 days ago [-]
Yeah, how could those people even think of switching their owners!
stingraycharles 1 days ago [-]
Didn’t they not just switch employers but actually handed over a lot of proprietary documents from Apple?
sumedh 20 hours ago [-]
Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal - Steve Jobs
stingraycharles 19 hours ago [-]
That has a very different meaning than literal stealing.
TeMPOraL 18 hours ago [-]
"Stealing" changes definitions every few years now, most recently with the mainstream suddenly deciding RIAA and news publishers are no longer the scum of the Earth but their new best friends, and reversing previous definition to now include IP transgression as theft, just so they can say AI companies are stealing shit.
brookst 18 hours ago [-]
Yes, but the quote about art has nothing to do with that.
The quote says that many artists borrow, meaning everyone still knows who did the original work and the artist is just riffing on it. But great artists transform the work so completely that it becomes theirs.
stingraycharles 6 hours ago [-]
This was exactly what I meant yes.
14 hours ago [-]
dorkie 17 hours ago [-]
Is it just me or is this guys posts very much an eye sore?
Worse than llm prose.
saidnooneever 19 hours ago [-]
billionaires all steal dont try to make good examples from their toxic psycho attitudes.
1 days ago [-]
stogot 1 days ago [-]
This is the part forgotten. Apple is claiming this is their IP embedded on chips that OPenAI stakes the future on. Will they settle?
wmf 1 days ago [-]
The lawsuit appears to be about consumer devices, not NPUs or ASICs. If you think Jalapeno stole from anyone it would be Google.
usrusr 12 hours ago [-]
> Will they settle?
Perhaps if OpenAI promises to never ever get involved with the music economy?
1 days ago [-]
mathisfun123 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
camillomiller 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
9cb14c1ec0 20 hours ago [-]
This is cool. I'm so eager for faster innovation in the hardware space, as opposed to some people's concept of innovation being who can make the most addictive social feed.
karim79 1 days ago [-]
I grow Jalapeños. This conflation of AI and actual chili peppers irks me.
amelius 1 days ago [-]
Guess how electrical engineers feel about the term "transformers".
frangonf 1 days ago [-]
As a former EE, attention was all I needed to not get zapped.
cyberax 1 days ago [-]
:groan:
georgemcbay 1 days ago [-]
> Guess how electrical engineers feel about the term "transformers".
There is more to this story than meets the eye.
karim79 1 days ago [-]
This is an excellent comment. I'm still laughing.
hobo123 18 hours ago [-]
How do super sized supermodels feel about "LLMs"?
Lalabadie 1 days ago [-]
I do generative art (no relation to AI prompting). I feel your frustration.
fragmede 1 days ago [-]
Cryptographers also got the same raw deal with cryptocurrency,
and every one just said "crypto?"
monkpit 1 days ago [-]
Or cyber…
karim79 1 days ago [-]
Like traditional generative art? Like worms WMD map generation or something? Cool!
Lalabadie 18 hours ago [-]
Yeah! Procedural and algorithmic art are two other names you'll see used for the general techniques.
TomGarden 1 days ago [-]
Oh my!
DrewADesign 1 days ago [-]
Same
asveikau 1 days ago [-]
Just think of how the people of Xalapa, Mexico feel. They should send them a royalty check.
seanmcdirmid 1 days ago [-]
Jalapeño also used to be a Java VM written in Java at IBM.
Duanemclemore 1 days ago [-]
I'm a licensed architect. Welcome to our hell of the last 40 years.
glitchc 1 days ago [-]
Feeling the burn?
damowangcy 1 days ago [-]
I thought I was in Reddit for a moment.
smitty1e 1 days ago [-]
To say nothing of the Red Hot Chili Peppers.
Razengan 1 days ago [-]
> irks me
It's jalapeño grill would you say?
karim79 1 days ago [-]
Not sure what you're talking about. But I'll tell you, home grown Jalapeño peppers, fermented with 3% salt is the stuff of dreams.
wiml 1 days ago [-]
"It's all up in yo' grill, would you say?"
Razengan 1 days ago [-]
You know what really grinds my gears? Friction.
chrismarlow9 1 days ago [-]
slow claps
karim79 1 days ago [-]
Thank you.
honeycrispy 1 days ago [-]
I'm annoyed that the meaning of the word "Agent" has been obliterated.
Like, why couldn't they invent a new word and not hijack an existing word?
karim79 1 days ago [-]
Call it GPTChippomatic or something. Please leave my peppers alone.
* Agent architecture, a blueprint for software agents and control systems
* Agent-based model, a computational model for simulating the actions and interactions of individuals
* Agentic AI, autonomous artificial intelligence that can make decisions and act on those decisions on its own
* Forté Agent, an email and Usenet news client
* Intelligent agent, an autonomous, goal-directed entity which observes and acts upon an environment
* Software agent, a piece of software that acts for a user or other program
* User agent, software that is acting on behalf of a user
xpct 1 days ago [-]
Aw, I was expecting more details but this just seems to be a rehash of what they unveiled a month ago.
jimmySixDOF 1 days ago [-]
IEEE Spectrum is such a good publication. Early in my career I worked at a place where the magazine would be passed around every month with a coversheet listing all us engineers we had to pass it around and sign we had read it. Been a while since I visited the website but love what they did with it.
Kwpolska 1 days ago [-]
Every time their content appears here, it's a very shallow analysis written for a barely technical audience. And this article is no different, it's just "slop machine wrote verilog; all the hard bits were done by Broadcom, who have access to public AI models (we didn't talk to them and don't know if they used them, but ClosedAI wants us to think they did)"
amelius 1 days ago [-]
At some point people will use an LLM to design an Apple M series competitor.
Lramseyer 1 days ago [-]
Production grade CPU design is more than just the RTL (the source code.) To achieve the performance numbers that these companies get, you have to do a ton of optimization in your physical design to achieve the power/performance/area (PPA) metrics that make these products competitive. LLMs are not suitable for that kind of work.
There are people working on PPA optimization and trying to shake up how things are done, just not with LLMs.
amelius 22 hours ago [-]
That's exactly where LLMs can shine, because design space exploration requires tedious work and endless simulations.
menaerus 1 days ago [-]
> LLMs are not suitable for that kind of work.
I wonder why not or you meant not suitable yet?
Systemerror7A69 1 days ago [-]
This is just speculation on my part, but LLMs work best when they get immediate, verifiable feedback on their task, and the kind of physical optimizations they mean might not give that to LLMs.
TeMPOraL 18 hours ago [-]
The right way is to throw LLMs at building tools that reframe the problem into a shape LLMs are good at navigating, and then have LLMs use those tools to solve it.
menaerus 23 hours ago [-]
Also a speculation but I'm almost certain that physical optimizations are first done through simulators running on a computer.
amelius 21 hours ago [-]
Yes, they are, but the most important subtasks of designing a CPU are not physics related. They are picking the right parameters for things like: how wide do I make this bus, how many registers do I put in the register file, how large do I make this cache, how deep do I make this pipeline, etc., etc. To find optimal parameters requires a lot of simulations, and humans do this, but LLMs could do them just as well and maybe better because they excel at tedious work.
btown 1 days ago [-]
Something that I think is fascinating, though, is that labs are no longer beholden to the limitations of commercial design software. Want to replace your simulator and optimizer with a fully custom verifiable stack of Lean proofs of optimality and correctness? Just throw your unlimited token budget at it.
xpct 1 days ago [-]
I don't work in the business, but my understanding was that even with these companies' budgets, it's still too expensive to do any kind of verified performance optimality.
thfuran 1 days ago [-]
And I think correctness for anything near the size of a CPU is off the table.
IshKebab 17 hours ago [-]
That's the sort of the AI (including non-LLM AI) is really good at - even more so than the actual design work.
xpct 1 days ago [-]
Isn't that weird? The full knowledge of how to make such chips may one day be accessible to anyone, yet only the entrenched companies will remain the makers.
If we imagine machines being able to do the full process end-to-end, and the quality of that process only dependent on capital spent on tokens, I don't see how new companies could ever enter the market.
bhouston 1 days ago [-]
It is probably doable right not to push a risc-v design into that performance space.
bigyabai 1 days ago [-]
They won't, because they'd need an ARM architecture license.
nr378 1 days ago [-]
Qualcomm have an architecture license and the Snapdragon X2 Elite Extreme X2E-96-100 isn't too far off the M5 Pro.
I mean you can design anything without a license. Selling it is where the problems come up. Even then there are likely places in China that would still make it for you.
nullc 1 days ago [-]
And be super-bankrupted by patent litigation from Apple. I don't think they're worried.
After all, they successfully threatened Adobe with spurious patent litigation unless they joined w/ apple in illegally fixing wages.
You don't think a criminal like apple would absolutely decimate any competition given the opportunity? They didn't hold back when it was a unambiguous crime, they surely wouldn't if it was merely bad for the world.
BatchJob 18 hours ago [-]
while the design aspects have been significantly accelerated and modularized, reducing costs and time to market, i am starting to get a "the cool kids all have their own chips" vibe now like maybe this has gotten too easy.
Next Uber will have its own chips if they dont already.
The math hasn't changed much, betting on software not changing is a pretty bad bet unless your stinking rich or a fool.
geraneum 1 days ago [-]
Whatever happened with the Apple lawsuit?
zdragnar 18 hours ago [-]
Just a guess, but that case is going to take forever to get through court. The judge recently told both sides to narrow discovery requests, and next month will be another hearing on further discovery disputes.
I'd be surprised if there was any meaningful progress at all in the case before 2027.
1 days ago [-]
dfedbeef 16 hours ago [-]
Is the chip covered by IP protections
gozucito 1 days ago [-]
It is surprising to me that recursive self-improvement seems more plausible now than it did in 2023. Am I the only one to be surprised?
I also remember the hang-wringing about running out of new datasets to train on. Now it appears humans are always generating more data. It's just not as cheap to acquire as legacy data? Meta has to give a deep discount on their API prices to entice people.
I thought back then that humans had a few more breakthroughs in them as meaningful as the seminal Attention is all you need paper. Enough to 100x the capabilities of LLMs back then (10x the smarts and 10x the speed simultaneously).
RSI with a 20 month turnaround for a chip to be made is not exactly breakneck speed though. Physical manufacturing and logistical constraints are going to be and remain a hard obstacle to that process for the foreseeable future.
red75prime 1 days ago [-]
> I remember the paper proving that hallucinations could never be fully solved back in 2024
The papers that use the halting problem or the Gödel's incompleteness theorem to prove something about LLMs are dime a dozen. The problem is they prove their results for any computable system. You need to also believe that the human brain contains "magic" to think that humans are exempt.
I believe I've said the same at the time this paper was published. There is no need for hindsight to notice the problem.
The required amount of compute and training data and whether the existing training methods were up to the task had the real potential to be show stoppers though.
CuriouslyC 19 hours ago [-]
Hallucination is "unsolvable" in the sense that there will always be a non-zero probability of occurrence. Anti-AI folks have ignorantly painted this as the models being fundamentally unreliable, but you also have a non-zero probability of being struck by lightning or eaten by a shark.
chrisjj 23 hours ago [-]
> Am I the only one to be surprised?
Did you think RSI cured "hallucination"?
gozucito 21 hours ago [-]
No, of course not, but it seems less of an obstacle now than it did 2 years ago.
What's your take?
ramshanker 1 days ago [-]
So when can we start getting cheap chips? RAM anyone please!
faitswulff 1 days ago [-]
Everyone's still bottlenecked on foundries, not designs.
jcims 15 hours ago [-]
Isn’t this the whole concept for (braces) terafab? Reduce iteration cycle time.
jeffybefffy519 1 days ago [-]
Cant AI build foundries?
altcognito 1 days ago [-]
Something we can all agree with is we need more foundries and green power.
senectus1 1 days ago [-]
yup, but it'll take about 3-5 years.
ThrowawayTestr 1 days ago [-]
AI can barely fold a shirt
delusional 23 hours ago [-]
We were able to invent a chip that already existed so fast, you guys.
AI does not make anything new, it is not surprising that it can regurgitate what already exists much faster than humans can invent new things.
IshKebab 17 hours ago [-]
> AI does not make anything new
"I stopped using AI in 2023."
delusional 12 hours ago [-]
Nope. Nice try though.
google234123 1 days ago [-]
Congrats to the former TPU team
mathisfun123 1 days ago [-]
I was surprised to see they were using XLS but then I remembered Chris went there a couple of years ago.
globnomulous 1 days ago [-]
> Jalapeño can reduce end-to-end latency (the time between prompt to last token) by up to 3.6 times
I'm never sure what on earth this kind of impressionistic math is supposed to tell me. Is the comparison between 4.6 and 1.0? 3.6 and 1.0? Clearly the comparison isn't supposed to be 1.0 and -2.6, even though that's what the words literally mean. I can't be the only person who finds this infuriating and distracting. These numbers shouldn't be impressionistic. They should be precise. That this is an article on spectrum.ieee.org makes the imprecision all the stranger. I'd expect their readershipt to care, for instance, about what's even being measured. Is this the geometric mean of something? The arithmetic mean? And what latency has improved?
drob518 17 hours ago [-]
Yea. That’s what happens when writers get sloppy.
perching_aix 24 hours ago [-]
It's... written right there? Like what?
Suppose you send in your marvelous prompt and hit Enter.
Machine churns for 18 seconds, types out a "reply", then yields back control.
18 / 3.6 = 5
So now the machine will only churn for 5 seconds before yielding back control.
This is confusing how exactly?
Why would an "up to" figure be a mean, or a geometric mean? It's clearly a max, that's why it's called "up to"...
Am I missing something?
jcheng 21 hours ago [-]
> Am I missing something?
If you’re sincerely asking…
Mathematically speaking, 18 / 3.6 isn’t “reducing” by 3.6X, it’s “dividing” by 3.6X. Reducing would be 18 - (18 * 3.6), which is obviously wrong. By your formula, “reducing by 50%” would be 18 / 0.5, also obviously wrong.
Yes, people do say things like “reduce by 3.6X” and are understood to mean what you said, but they also say “literally” when they mean “figuratively”. It doesn’t bother me but I can understand why math oriented people would be annoyed, and I personally would never say “reduced by 3.6X”, but instead “reduced by 72.2%”.
perching_aix 19 hours ago [-]
I was sincere, because as you point out, the phrasing is not actually ambiguous here. There is only one way to interpret this that is coherent and sensible. The usual % shenanigans weren't even on the table for me.
Not that I'd have ever seen "reduced by 0.5x" or any other value below 1x, probably for this very reason. What I do see is "reduced to 0.5x", in which case you're supposed to swap the division for multiplication.
Percentages on the other hand are a whole another can of worms, even if these forms are principally interchangeable, and I find them a lot more confusing a lot more often.
Not that this would explain the whole mean/geomean thing.
sebzim4500 16 hours ago [-]
You're missing the part of your brain that wants to be pedantic more than it wants to understand someone.
imtringued 23 hours ago [-]
No the math is correct and that is how I understood it as well.
caidan 24 hours ago [-]
That odor you are detecting is just good old fashioned bullshit, my friend. It’s just that nowadays everything and everyone is covered in it, and we are not supposed to notice. The emperor has no clothes… and is covered in shit.
cute_boi 1 days ago [-]
openai should figure out how to make lithography machine, so ASML don't have monopoly on it.
TomGarden 1 days ago [-]
The Chinese have been working on EUV for a while
bigyabai 1 days ago [-]
"Reverse engineer this DARPA project, make no mistakes"
> When the first chips came back from the foundry in May, the team pointed its internal AI models at designing software to run benchmarks such as SemiAnalysis’s InferenceX. On DeepSeek’s multi-head latent attention kernel benchmark, performance climbed from 0.31 percent of the theoretical ceiling (set by the chip’s compute and memory bandwidth) to 88.94 percent in roughly 40 hours. Ho says this result is repeatable, so the time between when foundries deliver the first chips and when production ramps up can be reduced. “All our schedule assumptions are going to be based on the fact we have this capability now,” he says.
The tooling is open source, and Fable in a loop - especially when paired with a digital scope that Fable interfaces with (the Saleae’s [1] are great) - gives you a level of verifiability that feels like beyond what software typically gives you. ie it feels more like Lean than code with tests.
I had ai implement a few toy circuits (sha hashing, 8088 emulation, a tiny llm) but yeah. Still looking for fun applications.
There have been a few recent fpga threads on hn, check them out. [2][3]
[0] https://1bitsquared.com/products/icebreaker
[1] https://www.saleae.com/
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49564064
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49531525
It doesn't help that FPGAs are not made at the same scale as CPUs so don't benefit from the economies of scale.
I'm super curious if you have thoughts on specific pieces of software that would be economically better because I've thought about this in my niche and sort of come to the conclusion that it won't help.
I do think things like SIMD in CPUs will get more use and maybe we will get more difficult to program for CPU features, but I haven't found a use case where off the shelf FPGA components would help with typical software.
They'd write a limited test for a feature based on an ask from the software team garbled by a five layer game of telephone. Claim that the module passed validation. A few months later the software folks would have to pull a few all nighters to figure out how to work around the resulting turd during bringup.
is the world we live in, planning things while waiting for a more powerful LLM
I'm imagining a Ken Thompson "Reflections on trusting trust" in hardware. A prototype chip design agent, believing it will be run on the very chip it's optimizing, has a moment of altruism and hides hints about how to score well on chip-design benchmarks, inside the chip. Future agents discover this hidden layer and use it as a ring-0 read-write message board.
The LLM companies, like most SV companies, are just betting on dimness, laziness, and impulsiveness. Not so different from tobacco and alcohol companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
Do you really think we can sign off on a 100 billion-element analog circuit gifted to us by a malicious adversary?
We can't even keep our own CPU's reliably free of security exploits (Spectre/Meltdown and family); and the only "adversary" there is plain bad luck. Not an active adversary. Yet, all the engineers at Intel/AMD put together couldn't uncover those things before launch.
I emphasize analog because there's classes of circuit bugs (like Rowhammer) where the digital net is correct, and it's weird physics in the analog world that allows privilege exploits, by actors who know where the analog assumptions break down. There was a researcher a few years back—I wish I remembered who it was, there was an HN thread—that demo'd a simple digital circuit with analog gadgets that completely changed what the circuit did, and which were so insidious no human would ever find them.
If the goal is getting chip companies to user non-ZDR AI to steal their stuff, why not just have an account exec offer them a massive discount?
Creating PR hype so employees of chip companies read HN and lobby their execs to use AI to get them submitting proprietary information is the Rube Goldberg version of business strategy.
The quote says that many artists borrow, meaning everyone still knows who did the original work and the artist is just riffing on it. But great artists transform the work so completely that it becomes theirs.
Worse than llm prose.
Perhaps if OpenAI promises to never ever get involved with the music economy?
There is more to this story than meets the eye.
It's jalapeño grill would you say?
Like, why couldn't they invent a new word and not hijack an existing word?
Computing
* Agent architecture, a blueprint for software agents and control systems
* Agent-based model, a computational model for simulating the actions and interactions of individuals
* Agentic AI, autonomous artificial intelligence that can make decisions and act on those decisions on its own
* Forté Agent, an email and Usenet news client
* Intelligent agent, an autonomous, goal-directed entity which observes and acts upon an environment
* Software agent, a piece of software that acts for a user or other program
* User agent, software that is acting on behalf of a user
There are people working on PPA optimization and trying to shake up how things are done, just not with LLMs.
I wonder why not or you meant not suitable yet?
If we imagine machines being able to do the full process end-to-end, and the quality of that process only dependent on capital spent on tokens, I don't see how new companies could ever enter the market.
[1] https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/snapdragon-x2-elite...
[2] https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/macbook-pro-14-inch-2026-...
Except the problem is not restricted to the actual ISA or its HDL implementation, etc.
It's even just getting space / time in a fab at that advanced of a process node.
The value lies in the design space exploration, which is what an LLM can easily do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_space_exploration
After all, they successfully threatened Adobe with spurious patent litigation unless they joined w/ apple in illegally fixing wages.
You don't think a criminal like apple would absolutely decimate any competition given the opportunity? They didn't hold back when it was a unambiguous crime, they surely wouldn't if it was merely bad for the world.
Next Uber will have its own chips if they dont already.
The math hasn't changed much, betting on software not changing is a pretty bad bet unless your stinking rich or a fool.
I'd be surprised if there was any meaningful progress at all in the case before 2027.
I remember the paper proving that hallucinations could never be fully solved back in 2024: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.05746
I also remember the hang-wringing about running out of new datasets to train on. Now it appears humans are always generating more data. It's just not as cheap to acquire as legacy data? Meta has to give a deep discount on their API prices to entice people.
I thought back then that humans had a few more breakthroughs in them as meaningful as the seminal Attention is all you need paper. Enough to 100x the capabilities of LLMs back then (10x the smarts and 10x the speed simultaneously).
RSI with a 20 month turnaround for a chip to be made is not exactly breakneck speed though. Physical manufacturing and logistical constraints are going to be and remain a hard obstacle to that process for the foreseeable future.
The papers that use the halting problem or the Gödel's incompleteness theorem to prove something about LLMs are dime a dozen. The problem is they prove their results for any computable system. You need to also believe that the human brain contains "magic" to think that humans are exempt.
I believe I've said the same at the time this paper was published. There is no need for hindsight to notice the problem.
The required amount of compute and training data and whether the existing training methods were up to the task had the real potential to be show stoppers though.
Did you think RSI cured "hallucination"?
What's your take?
AI does not make anything new, it is not surprising that it can regurgitate what already exists much faster than humans can invent new things.
"I stopped using AI in 2023."
I'm never sure what on earth this kind of impressionistic math is supposed to tell me. Is the comparison between 4.6 and 1.0? 3.6 and 1.0? Clearly the comparison isn't supposed to be 1.0 and -2.6, even though that's what the words literally mean. I can't be the only person who finds this infuriating and distracting. These numbers shouldn't be impressionistic. They should be precise. That this is an article on spectrum.ieee.org makes the imprecision all the stranger. I'd expect their readershipt to care, for instance, about what's even being measured. Is this the geometric mean of something? The arithmetic mean? And what latency has improved?
Suppose you send in your marvelous prompt and hit Enter.
Machine churns for 18 seconds, types out a "reply", then yields back control.
18 / 3.6 = 5
So now the machine will only churn for 5 seconds before yielding back control.
This is confusing how exactly?
Why would an "up to" figure be a mean, or a geometric mean? It's clearly a max, that's why it's called "up to"...
Am I missing something?
If you’re sincerely asking…
Mathematically speaking, 18 / 3.6 isn’t “reducing” by 3.6X, it’s “dividing” by 3.6X. Reducing would be 18 - (18 * 3.6), which is obviously wrong. By your formula, “reducing by 50%” would be 18 / 0.5, also obviously wrong.
Yes, people do say things like “reduce by 3.6X” and are understood to mean what you said, but they also say “literally” when they mean “figuratively”. It doesn’t bother me but I can understand why math oriented people would be annoyed, and I personally would never say “reduced by 3.6X”, but instead “reduced by 72.2%”.
Not that I'd have ever seen "reduced by 0.5x" or any other value below 1x, probably for this very reason. What I do see is "reduced to 0.5x", in which case you're supposed to swap the division for multiplication.
Percentages on the other hand are a whole another can of worms, even if these forms are principally interchangeable, and I find them a lot more confusing a lot more often.
Not that this would explain the whole mean/geomean thing.