AI learns the “dark art” of RFIC design • Hacker News Board

Re: AI learns the “dark art” of RFIC design

#71

Post by dataviz1000 » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:11 PM UTC

t-writescode wrote: post #25

I’m a bit frustrated. AI can do a looot of things; but I think as we continue to muddy the waters between LLMs and more traditional machine learning like Monte Carlo, Genetic Algoriths, Expert Systems and other Statistics magic tricks, we’re too aggressively conflating established and morally neutral activities in ML with the concerns that people have about LLMs and Stable Diffusion. Though I also imagine that that i…

Reinforcement learning can solve a Rubik’s Cube. A LLM that hasn’t been trained to solve a Rubik’s Cube can not.

Re: AI learns the “dark art” of RFIC design

#72

Post by Henchman21 » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:12 PM UTC

skywhopper wrote: post #34

I don’t know. I can imagine quite a bit.

Unexpected Star Wars! A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one :)

Re: AI learns the “dark art” of RFIC design

#73

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:12 PM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #54

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I could wave a magic wand and just make the word "AI" go away. It has no actual meaning. It could mean anything from your opponent in Mario Kart to Stable Diffusion.

Game AI uses behaviour trees, usually coded by hand. Decision trees are used for classification and are normally learned from data. The latter are a traditional AI technique from the early days of the modern machine learning era, in the 1990's.

[deleted]

Re: AI learns the “dark art” of RFIC design

#74

Post by Henchman21 » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:12 PM UTC

xp84 wrote: post #50

Brian_K_White wrote: post #26

If you don't know how it works, then you don't know that it works.

How does your consciousness work?

Pretty well, between all the hallucinogens

Re: AI learns the “dark art” of RFIC design

#75

Post by Fargren » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:16 PM UTC

dist-epoch wrote: post #4

I am confused, every day I read on HN that AI's can just interpolate the data they have seen in training, and that they are structurally incapable of coming up with something new, creative and not in the training distribution.

> I read on HN that AI's can just interpolate the data they have seen in training

No. That can be said about LLMs, but not about all forms of AI. The technique used is not a LLM.

Sadly we've bastardized the term AI that, if it ever meant anything, it's meaningless now. The currently most voted thread in this post discuses the topic.

Re: AI learns the “dark art” of RFIC design

#76

Post by vatsachak » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:16 PM UTC

flossEveryday wrote: post #3

the biggest question for me is how robust are these designs. in the journal articles they did show measurements of real devices which agreed fine with predictions, but i didn't find them addressing it explicitly in the text. also, some systems they presented contained subblocks that were conventionally designed that could be carrying some of the weight. or maybe i'm just sour that they're coming for my job? or maybe…

Yeah it's a hype slop piece

Re: AI learns the “dark art” of RFIC design

#77

Post by Schlagbohrer » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:22 PM UTC

The methods outlined in this article aren't new. Scientists were using "genetic algorithms" to design antennas that weren't understood by anyone, but worked well, decades ago.

Re: AI learns the “dark art” of RFIC design

#78

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:24 PM UTC

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #69

pixl97 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're relearning that intelligence is spikey, and that different things that we consider 'intelligent' can have vastly different capabilities.

We're learning that people are way too lax with where they apply the term "intelligent". LLMs aren't remotely intelligent, but people are trying to ride the hype train and call them intelligence.

[deleted]

Re: AI learns the “dark art” of RFIC design

#79

Post by subygan » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:25 PM UTC

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #69

pixl97 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're relearning that intelligence is spikey, and that different things that we consider 'intelligent' can have vastly different capabilities.

We're learning that people are way too lax with where they apply the term "intelligent". LLMs aren't remotely intelligent, but people are trying to ride the hype train and call them intelligence.

this is just false.

by any meaningful measure of intelligence. the latest models are much smarter than the bulk of the population.

how would you define intelligence?

Re: AI learns the “dark art” of RFIC design

#80

Post by falcor84 » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:26 PM UTC

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #69

pixl97 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're relearning that intelligence is spikey, and that different things that we consider 'intelligent' can have vastly different capabilities.

We're learning that people are way too lax with where they apply the term "intelligent". LLMs aren't remotely intelligent, but people are trying to ride the hype train and call them intelligence.

> LLMs aren't remotely intelligent

Maybe I'm just significantly and unrepresentatively unlucky, but Claude is significantly more intelligent than the average human around me on most any metric I can think of.