Live data from Hacker News

Interviewing Intel's Chief Architect of x86 Cores

chipsandcheese.com

21–29 of 29 posts

Re: Interviewing Intel's Chief Architect of x86 Cores

#21
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you expect to get out of this. How do you make a "contentful summary" of a contentless interview? Where do you get the content from?

By using general knowledge to write e.g what adding a store address unit accomplishes in the context of the rest of the interview. Did you even read the chat?

That doesn’t add useful content. It adds definitions. That’s just padding.

Only the interviewee can add content.

I’m also of the opinion “I asked ChatGPT for a summary” type comments are very low effort and don’t add to the discussion.

Re: Interviewing Intel's Chief Architect of x86 Cores

#22
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By using general knowledge to write e.g what adding a store address unit accomplishes in the context of the rest of the interview. Did you even read the chat?

That doesn’t add useful content. It adds definitions. That’s just padding. Only the interviewee can add content. I’m also of the opinion “I asked ChatGPT for a summary” type comments are very low effort and don’t add to the discussion.

Unfortunately our AI future involves many more people refusing to use their brains for more than a few seconds and depend on AI to generate summaries without knowing what parts are hallucinated or even the point.

Re: Interviewing Intel's Chief Architect of x86 Cores

#23
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is no Jim Keller, and the mostly[1] automated transcript makes it read cringe, but it is not at all devoid of content. Some examples of very interesting, non-obvious content: * Even if store ports are kept fixed (2 in his example), adding store address generators (up to 4 in his example) actually improves performance, because it frees up load port dependencies. * Within the same core, they use two different styles…

I did the transcription, but not the dialogs and labels etc. So I can say with certainty that it wasn't automated :) What made the transcription "cringe"? I'd like to believe it's accurate.

Oops, sorry about carelessly throwing the "cringe" label at that. Thanks for the transcript which allowed me to enjoy the content, which I did find very interesting.

I haven't watched the video so I am not sure how he actually talks, but what read cringe to me was things like the following paragraph:

"Stephen Robinson: Yeah. So let’s, let’s break it down into address generation versus execution. So, when you have three load execution ports, you need three load address generators. And so that’s there. On the store side, we have four store address generation units. But we only sustain two stores into the data cache."

Which reads weird. "let's" repeated twice, probably a stutter, could be transcribed just once. The "So" or "And so" the interviewee uses all the time at the start of sentences can also be removed for clearer and easier reading most of the time, without loss of meaning. Some sentences can almost be removed completely as they provide no actual information. The previous paragraph could be transcribed like this:

"Stephen Robinson: Let’s break it down into address generation versus execution. When you have three load execution ports, you need three load address generators. That’s there. On the store side, we have four store address generation units. But we only sustain two stores into the data cache."

I hesitate to remove "That's there." so I left it. But everything else I removed, it makes it clearer, and I think I'm not being unfaithful to the original. Removing the duplicate "let's" is a given as it's normal to stutter when speaking, but you don't really want to transcribe that unless the goal is to transcribe the talking imperfections we all have. And all the other things I removed, "Yeah", "So", "And so", are basically the same type of thing.

I thought this was automated because it had so many of the meaningless go-to words and hesitations from the original. Now that you mention it, automated transcription would probably never have produced something this good. And otherwise we are talking about stylistic preference here, always subjective -- although I'd definitely prefer the style of transcription suggest here.

Thanks again. I read chips and cheese with interest, quite often, and enjoy it quite a lot. Keep up the good work. And sorry for the careless put-down.

Re: Interviewing Intel's Chief Architect of x86 Cores

#24
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By using general knowledge to write e.g what adding a store address unit accomplishes in the context of the rest of the interview. Did you even read the chat?

That doesn’t add useful content. It adds definitions. That’s just padding. Only the interviewee can add content. I’m also of the opinion “I asked ChatGPT for a summary” type comments are very low effort and don’t add to the discussion.

> don't add to the discussion

For sure, I'm against it as well, it's just that in this case the transcription provided in the article was so terse that it was more or less useless. LLMs are good at expanding it to make more sense as prose. If you open the link, that is what the prompt asks it do as well. I'd argue that's useful and not just padding.

> Add content

Yes, I mentioned this in my original comment "not the why" "surface level" etc

Re: Interviewing Intel's Chief Architect of x86 Cores

#25
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t add useful content. It adds definitions. That’s just padding. Only the interviewee can add content. I’m also of the opinion “I asked ChatGPT for a summary” type comments are very low effort and don’t add to the discussion.

Unfortunately our AI future involves many more people refusing to use their brains for more than a few seconds and depend on AI to generate summaries without knowing what parts are hallucinated or even the point.

Or, they read the transcription, didn't have time to see the video interview, and used an LLM to augment it to make sense as prose as an aid to the casual reader. I know a fair bit about the topic at hand:) but not enough to be gung-ho about it on a tech forum frequented by legends.

If you actually went through the LLM output, found problems with it, and then commented this, it would be fine. Until then it's an unfounded accusation.

Re: Interviewing Intel's Chief Architect of x86 Cores

#26
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did the transcription, but not the dialogs and labels etc. So I can say with certainty that it wasn't automated :) What made the transcription "cringe"? I'd like to believe it's accurate.

Oops, sorry about carelessly throwing the "cringe" label at that. Thanks for the transcript which allowed me to enjoy the content, which I did find very interesting. I haven't watched the video so I am not sure how he actually talks, but what read cringe to me was things like the following paragraph: "Stephen Robinson: Yeah. So let’s, let’s break it down into address generation versus execution. So, when you have thr…

[flagged]

Re: Interviewing Intel's Chief Architect of x86 Cores

#27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately our AI future involves many more people refusing to use their brains for more than a few seconds and depend on AI to generate summaries without knowing what parts are hallucinated or even the point.

Or, they read the transcription, didn't have time to see the video interview, and used an LLM to augment it to make sense as prose as an aid to the casual reader. I know a fair bit about the topic at hand:) but not enough to be gung-ho about it on a tech forum frequented by legends. If you actually went through the LLM output, found problems with it, and then commented this, it would be fine. Until then it's an unfou…

If they want to use an LLM, they can. I don’t see what posting it adds.

Re: Interviewing Intel's Chief Architect of x86 Cores

#28
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, they read the transcription, didn't have time to see the video interview, and used an LLM to augment it to make sense as prose as an aid to the casual reader. I know a fair bit about the topic at hand:) but not enough to be gung-ho about it on a tech forum frequented by legends. If you actually went through the LLM output, found problems with it, and then commented this, it would be fine. Until then it's an unfou…

If they want to use an LLM, they can. I don’t see what posting it adds.

"If people want to read an article, they can search for it themselves. I don't see what posting it here adds"

Re: Interviewing Intel's Chief Architect of x86 Cores

#29
post #26
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oops, sorry about carelessly throwing the "cringe" label at that. Thanks for the transcript which allowed me to enjoy the content, which I did find very interesting. I haven't watched the video so I am not sure how he actually talks, but what read cringe to me was things like the following paragraph: "Stephen Robinson: Yeah. So let’s, let’s break it down into address generation versus execution. So, when you have thr…

[flagged]

Users willingness to apologize is one of the better parts of this forum.

Lets not discourage it with trite comments like this :)

Post reply on HN