Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI learns the “dark art” of RFIC design

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 194 posts

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

#131

Post by try_the_bass »

the_af wrote: post #112
jordanb wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> our common expectation I think you're going too far with this. Most people understand scientific theories to be an approximation. F=ma is approximately true, in the sense that it's only accurate within the newtonian regime and each of those terms includes so many asterisks that you will only ever measure it approximately. The latter is the jokes about the physicists "assuming a perfectly spherical cow." In fact tha…

> The latter is the jokes about the physicists "assuming a perfectly spherical cow." Not to detract from your point at all, but I only ever heard this joke about mathematicians !

I've definitely heard a similar joke about economists. It probably applies to most sciences, tbh

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

#132

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

folkrav wrote: post #116
dyauspitr wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t agree with that at all. Maybe for asinine things like human behavior but otherwise nature and physics don’t really follow that rubric.

Are you thinking of any specific examples? I don't disagree that complex things generally end up having complex explanations, but I'm admittedly drawing a blank trying to come up with things where the most complex explanation ended up being the correct one.

There are many marvels of evolution's ability to come up with robust complex distributed systems which work way better than anything we build. The one I've learned about most recently is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunological_synapse in which different kinds of white blood cells gather around a bit of evidence that one of them found and decide whether to shoot the messenger (clonal anergy), or raise a clone army to defeat the invader (T-cell activation).

Imagine that it's maybe the 1800's and you're asking why somebody who has already survived smallpox is not susceptible to becoming infected again. If you offered an explanation involving tiny detectives wandering around and collecting evidence which they present to each other and decide whether to multiply... one in which the tolerance comes from the detectives from the previous fight still hanging around in your lymph nodes ready to spring into action if they run across the right kind of evidence. Well that would probably be a more complicated explanation that anybody at the time would offer, and it would also be correct.

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

#133

Post by folkrav »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #132
folkrav wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you thinking of any specific examples? I don't disagree that complex things generally end up having complex explanations, but I'm admittedly drawing a blank trying to come up with things where the most complex explanation ended up being the correct one.

There are many marvels of evolution's ability to come up with robust complex distributed systems which work way better than anything we build. The one I've learned about most recently is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunological_synapse in which different kinds of white blood cells gather around a bit of evidence that one of them found and decide whether to shoot the messenger (clonal anergy), or raise a clone…

Incomplete prior knowledge doesn't mean it's simpler, just that it's inaccurate. Would the phenomenon you're describing really accurately be explained by something _simpler_?

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

#134

Post by gamblor956 »

pfdietz wrote: post #70

One great application of AI design is patent poisoning. Use AI to churn out masses of variant designs, make them publicly visible on a web site, and if future patents come out use any collisions to invalidate them or at least restrict their scope (generalization of a patent is limited by prior art.)

Wouldn't work. Judges would not treat the AI generated designs as prior art without proof of human involvement (above and beyond entering the prompt).

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

#135

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

bsaul wrote: post #83

I wonder if our common expectation that true theories somehow had to be beautiful and elegant is going to survive the coming century. What if "real" nature phenomenon were actually best described by horrible mess of impossible equations, that only machines could actually manipulate and reason about ? That would be really sad..

Would it be sad? If it’s gnarly and it solves the problem, as an end user I don’t really care. The only people who lose are the mathematical purists

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

#137

Post by alwa »

pfdietz wrote: post #104
alwa wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m reminded of lawyer Damien Riehl’s (performative) reaction to the Sam Smith infringement decision, back in 2019/2020. He and programmer Noah Rubin algorithmically generated every possible melody (within a certain combinatorial space, in MIDI format as I recall), and purported to release them under CC-0 license [0]. He went on to attract some attention and explain his argument at a regional TEDx event [1]. I seem t…

Copyrights are a bit different from patents.

For sure, but I suspect the law might look similarly dimly on the argument that “machines systematically generated all possibilities in the problem space” === “somebody already had this idea.” I’d imagine maybe by reading specific human intention into “prior art” and “existing work” and those sorts of terms.

Which is not to say let’s not do it anyway and see!

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

#138

Post by smath »

robviren wrote: post #5

Reminds me of good ol genetic algorithm search. Guess and check can be quite powerful, especially if you can toss in agent in the loop guidance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna

GA’s optimize only combinatorial problems though — where you have discrete set of choices (~genes) for each variable, and therefore do not have a gradient

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

#139

Post by slopinthebag »

lomlobon wrote: post #127
slopinthebag wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would nature be best described as a horrible mess of impossible equations? They would be best described as elegant and beautiful no? I think your point is more that we might be able to initially describe complex phenomena as messy, horrible complex equations, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work to simplify them and make them more understandable to us.

Look up diagrams for cell signaling cascades sometime. It's emblematic.

In some ways it's like a smalltalk system haha. I think you can find some elegance there. The system is overall complex, but with simple primitives.

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

#140

Post by pfdietz »

alwa wrote: post #137
pfdietz wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyrights are a bit different from patents.

For sure, but I suspect the law might look similarly dimly on the argument that “machines systematically generated all possibilities in the problem space” === “somebody already had this idea.” I’d imagine maybe by reading specific human intention into “prior art ” and “existing work ” and those sorts of terms. Which is not to say let’s not do it anyway and see!

Or they might conclude "even an AI could come up with this, it's obvious". Obviousness is a defense in patent law, not in copyright law.
Post reply on HN