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

ChatGPT for Hardware Design

docs.flux.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 165 posts

Re: ChatGPT for Hardware Design

#61

Post by arcticbull »

rock_hard wrote: post #52
arcticbull wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, I noticed in the video that it recommended for a voltage regulator either an LM7805 or an LM1117 - either a super inefficient 5V regulator that has no business in new designs, or a 1.2V low-dropout 800mA regulator that is probably not appropriate to the other components it recommended (i.e. an LM7805 -> LM1117 would be 36% efficient at best). It then also recommends a LiPo battery with a nominal 3.7…

In this case it seems to be giving examples of common ICs that are voltage regulators - these answers to high level questions are pretty vague by default. We've had good results by asking follow up questions like "what power supply IC could I use to power a 3.3v microcontroller from a 3.7V nominal LiPo battery over the whole battery voltage range?". I asked that question and I got: LM3940 and AMS1117-3.3 (LDO, high d…

btw I hope my comment didn't come across as too negative, like many folks I'm still trying to frame my own thinking around this kind of tooling. Thanks for the follow-up.

Re: ChatGPT for Hardware Design

#62

Post by built_with_flux »

markwu2001 wrote: post #11

PCB Designer on the team: Holy cow this is awesome! The integration of project context with an LLM enabled more than the sum of its parts when it comes to information access. When designing circuits for fast iterations, you're constantly managing risk and time expenditure; this leads to copying a lot of "flight heritage" circuits so to speak. With the LLM, I'm able to get highly condensed starting points for better c…

Here is nice demo video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aCN92kOxTU

Re: ChatGPT for Hardware Design

#63

Post by assimpleaspossi »

gfodor wrote: post #58
assimpleaspossi wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find comments similar to yours about ChatGPT all over the internet. I finally took the time to ask that some questions over the last few days. All the answers it gave were mundane and expected from any click bait web site you can find. I Googled the same questions and found similar answers. Some personal questions it refused to answer or give suggestions because "only you can decide" was the response. I'm very susp…

You’re probably not using GPT-4, the internet is being flooded with takes about GPT-3.5’s quality like this simply because the author doesn’t know there is a meaningful difference with the new model.

When I go here: https://openai.com/product/gpt-4 it says "try on chatgpt plus" and sends me to the same page I log in with and that's where I've been testing it.

Re: ChatGPT for Hardware Design

#64

Post by pigeons »

gfodor wrote: post #58
assimpleaspossi wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find comments similar to yours about ChatGPT all over the internet. I finally took the time to ask that some questions over the last few days. All the answers it gave were mundane and expected from any click bait web site you can find. I Googled the same questions and found similar answers. Some personal questions it refused to answer or give suggestions because "only you can decide" was the response. I'm very susp…

You’re probably not using GPT-4, the internet is being flooded with takes about GPT-3.5’s quality like this simply because the author doesn’t know there is a meaningful difference with the new model.

GPT-4 still confidently makes up sources for wrong answers and throws subtle mistakes (the obvious mistakes aren't as big a nuisance) into output.

This isn't to say gpt-4 isn't cool or impressive or a development to watch and learn about and be excited about, but I frequently see criticism dismissed as "you must be using 3.5" while I find 4 still costs more time than it would have potentially saved.

Re: ChatGPT for Hardware Design

#65

Post by jacquesm »

gfodor wrote: post #58
assimpleaspossi wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find comments similar to yours about ChatGPT all over the internet. I finally took the time to ask that some questions over the last few days. All the answers it gave were mundane and expected from any click bait web site you can find. I Googled the same questions and found similar answers. Some personal questions it refused to answer or give suggestions because "only you can decide" was the response. I'm very susp…

You’re probably not using GPT-4, the internet is being flooded with takes about GPT-3.5’s quality like this simply because the author doesn’t know there is a meaningful difference with the new model.

If GPT-X would just shut up if it doesn't know something it would already be 10x more useful than it is right now.

Re: ChatGPT for Hardware Design

#66

Post by LesZedCB »

masto wrote: post #41

Opened site. Chat popped up in the corner and started making sound effects. Closed site. I guess it doesn't matter if a few people are annoyed, if the end result of these things is a new increase in conversions. But I wish "don't annoy people" was actually in the product requirements.

> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: ChatGPT for Hardware Design

#67

Post by jacquesm »

aloer wrote: post #34

The timing could not be more perfect. Yesterday I realized that I need to create my very first PCB to repair and smartify a device that I broke. Today I thought I should use ChatGPT to better understand how things work. And now this. There are a lot of space constraints so first thing is figuring out if it is even possible to build as small as needed. Usually I would probably be better off starting to build big first…

That last video... drool.

Re: ChatGPT for Hardware Design

#68

Post by sbohacek »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #63
gfodor wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re probably not using GPT-4, the internet is being flooded with takes about GPT-3.5’s quality like this simply because the author doesn’t know there is a meaningful difference with the new model.

When I go here: https://openai.com/product/gpt-4 it says "try on chatgpt plus" and sends me to the same page I log in with and that's where I've been testing it.

Be sure that you select GPT-4 from the drop down list of models. For each new chat, it reverts back to default GPT-3.5.

Re: ChatGPT for Hardware Design

#69

Post by Czarcasm »

fortyseven wrote: post #13

Why on earth would you call this "copilot" when GitHub has already long established that as a name in this space? :I

Github can't monopolize the word "copilot". It's a basic english word to describe someone that is assisting you to steer a vessel/team/project. It's been around for hundreds of years in naval industry, and in aviation since the dawn of flight.

Re: ChatGPT for Hardware Design

#70

Post by gowld »

rock_hard wrote: post #2

Founder here: Incredibly stoked to announce this today! This is a dream a long time in the making. When we first thought of rebuilding the hardware design tooling stack from scratch, AI driven design seemed like the dream at the end of the tunnel...only 3+ years later we are here Given the open ended nature of AI Expert agents we are launching a community preview. We are committed to keep building http://flux.ai in t…

> rebuilding the hardware design tooling stack from scratch

This kind of talk is tacky and repels technical users.

Post reply on HN