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

YC is wrong about LLMs for chip design

zach.be

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 283 posts

Re: YC is wrong about LLMs for chip design

#41

Post by ksynwa »

ReptileMan wrote: post #26
fsndz wrote: post #9

They want to throw LLMs at everything even if it does not make sense. Same is true for all the AI agent craze: https://medium.com/thoughts-on-machine-learning/langchains-s...

Isn't that the case with every new tech. There was a time in which people tried to cook everything in a microwave

Microwave sellers did not become trillion dollar companies off that hype

Re: YC is wrong about LLMs for chip design

#43

Post by ksynwa »

alw4s wrote: post #36
fsndz wrote: post #9

They want to throw LLMs at everything even if it does not make sense. Same is true for all the AI agent craze: https://medium.com/thoughts-on-machine-learning/langchains-s...

please dont post a link that is behind a paywall !!

https://archive.is/dLp6t

It is a registration wall I think.

Re: YC is wrong about LLMs for chip design

#44

Post by thrw42A8N »

B1FF_PSUVM wrote: post #22
herval wrote: post #18

YC is just spraying & praying AI, like most investors

And liable to make money at it, on a "greater fool" basis - a successful sale (exit) is not necessarily a successful, profitable company ...

In the case of YC, their stake is so low that they don't really get any upside unless it's a successful, profitable company.

Re: YC is wrong about LLMs for chip design

#45

Post by ReptileMan »

ksynwa wrote: post #41
ReptileMan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that the case with every new tech. There was a time in which people tried to cook everything in a microwave

Microwave sellers did not become trillion dollar companies off that hype

Mostly because the marginal cost of microwaves was not close to zero.

Re: YC is wrong about LLMs for chip design

#47

Post by MobiusHorizons »

0xmarcin wrote: post #2

This is not my domain so my knowledge is limited, but I wonder if the chip designers have some sort of a standard library of ready to use components. Do you have to design e.g. ALU every time you design a new CPU or is there some standard component to use? I think having a proven components that can be glued on a higher level may be the key to productivity here. Returning to LLMs. I think the problem here may be that…

The most common thing you see shared is something called IP which does mean intellectual property, but in this context you can think of it like buying ICs that you integrate into your design (ie you wire them up). You can also get Verilog, but that is usually used for verification instead of taping out the peripheral. This is because the company you buy the IP from will tape out the design for a specific node in order to guarantee the specifications. Examples of this would be everything from arm cores to uart and spi controllers as well as pretty much anything you could buy as a standalone IC.

Re: YC is wrong about LLMs for chip design

#48

Post by alw4s »

alain94040 wrote: post #4

I agree with most of the technical points of the article. But there may still be value in YC calling for innovation in that space. The article is correctly showing that there is no easy win in applying LLMs to chip design. Either the market for a given application is too small, then LLMs can help but who cares, or the chip is too important, in which case you'd rather use the best engineers. Unlike software, we're not…

you could say it is the naive arrogance of the beginner mind.

seen here as well when george-hotz attempts to overthow the chip companies with his plan for an ai chip https://geohot.github.io/blog/jekyll/update/2021/06/13/a-bre... little realizing the complexity involved. to his credit, he quickly pivoted into a software and tiny-box maker.

Re: YC is wrong about LLMs for chip design

#49

Post by therealcamino »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #33
brookst wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You find it hard to believe that non-deterministic black boxes at the core of complex systems are eager to put non-deterministic black boxes at the core of complex systems?

Can you actually like follow through with this line? I know there are literally tens of thousands of comments just like this at this point, but if you have chance, could you explain what you think this means? What should we take from it? Just unpack it a little bit for us.

I took it to be a joke that the description "slow, expensive, non-deterministic black boxes" can apply to the engineers themselves. The engineers would be the ones who would have to place LLMs at the core of the system. To anyone outside, the work of the engineers is as opaque as the operation of LLMs.

Re: YC is wrong about LLMs for chip design

#50

Post by croshan »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #33
brookst wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You find it hard to believe that non-deterministic black boxes at the core of complex systems are eager to put non-deterministic black boxes at the core of complex systems?

Can you actually like follow through with this line? I know there are literally tens of thousands of comments just like this at this point, but if you have chance, could you explain what you think this means? What should we take from it? Just unpack it a little bit for us.

An interpretation that makes sense to me: humans are non-deterministic black boxes already at the core of complex systems. So in that sense, replacing a human with AI is not unreasonable.

I’d disagree, though: humans are still easier to predict and understand (and trust) than AI, typically.

Post reply on HN