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

Testing Generative AI for Circuit Board Design

blog.jitx.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 180 posts

Re: Testing Generative AI for Circuit Board Design

#91

Post by nurple »

cjk2 wrote: post #77
bmicraft wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would seem to me that the majority of boards would be a lot more forgiving. Are you saying you wouldn't be impressed if it could do only say 70% of board designs completely?

No because it’s hard enough picking up an experienced human’s designs and work with them. A 70% done board is a headache to unwrap. I’d start again.

This is how I am with software. There's usually a reason I'm arriving at 70% done, and it's not often because it's well designed and documented...

Re: Testing Generative AI for Circuit Board Design

#92

Post by refulgentis »

ben_w wrote: post #80
refulgentis wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's this odd strain of thought that there's some general thing that will pop for hucksters and the unwashed masses, who are sheep led along by huckster wolves who won't admit LLMs aint ???, because they're profiting off it It's frustrating because it's infantalizing, it derails the potential of an interesting technical discussion (ex. Here, diffusion), and it misses the mark substantially. At the end of the day,…

> But is that really it? I'm all ears. I'm on a 5 hour flight. I'm genuinely unclear on whats going on that leads people to take this absolutist position that they're waiting for ??? to admit ??? about LLMs. Irony: humans think in very black-and-white terms, one could even say boolean; conversely LLMs display subtly and nuance. When I was a kid, repeats of Trek had Spock and Kirk defeating robots with the liar's para…

Excellent point, it really is what it comes down to. There's people getting hoodwinked and people hoodwinking and then me, the one who sees them for what they are.

Re: Testing Generative AI for Circuit Board Design

#93

Post by goatlover »

makk wrote: post #60
surfingdino wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This feels like an excellent demonstration of the limitation of zero-shot LLMs. It feels like the wrong way to approach this. There is one posted on HN every week. How many more do we need to accept the fact this tech is not what it is sold at and we are bored waiting for it get good? I am not say "get better", because it keeps getting better, but somehow doesn't get good.

That’s a perception and the problem isn’t the AI it’s human nature: 1. every time AI is able to do a thing we move the goalposts and say, yeah, but it can’t do that other thing over there; 2. We are impatient, so our ability to get bored tends to outpace the rate of change.

The other side of this coin is everyone overhyping what AI can do, and when the inevitable criticism comes, they respond by claiming the goal posts are being moved. Perhaps, but you also told me it could do XYZ, when it can only do X and some Y, but not much Z, and it’s still not general intelligence in the he broad sense.

Re: Testing Generative AI for Circuit Board Design

#94

Post by refulgentis »

shermantanktop wrote: post #81
refulgentis wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's this odd strain of thought that there's some general thing that will pop for hucksters and the unwashed masses, who are sheep led along by huckster wolves who won't admit LLMs aint ???, because they're profiting off it It's frustrating because it's infantalizing, it derails the potential of an interesting technical discussion (ex. Here, diffusion), and it misses the mark substantially. At the end of the day,…

So what should we make of the presence of actual hucksters and actual senior execs who are acting like credulous sheep? I see this every day in my world. At the same time I do appreciate the actual performance and potential future promise of this tech. I have to remind myself that the wolf and sheep show is a side attraction, but for some people it’s clearly the main attraction.

The wolves/sheep thing was to indicate how moralizing and infantalizing serves as a substitute for actually explaining what the problem is, because surely, it's not that the prose machine isn't doing circuit design.

I'm sure you see it, I'd just love for someone to pause their internal passion play long enough to explain what they're seeing. Because I refuse to infantalize, I refuse to believe it's just grumbling because its not 100% accurate 100% of the time, and doesn't do 100% of everything.

Re: Testing Generative AI for Circuit Board Design

#95

Post by goatlover »

ben_w wrote: post #80
refulgentis wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's this odd strain of thought that there's some general thing that will pop for hucksters and the unwashed masses, who are sheep led along by huckster wolves who won't admit LLMs aint ???, because they're profiting off it It's frustrating because it's infantalizing, it derails the potential of an interesting technical discussion (ex. Here, diffusion), and it misses the mark substantially. At the end of the day,…

> But is that really it? I'm all ears. I'm on a 5 hour flight. I'm genuinely unclear on whats going on that leads people to take this absolutist position that they're waiting for ??? to admit ??? about LLMs. Irony: humans think in very black-and-white terms, one could even say boolean; conversely LLMs display subtly and nuance. When I was a kid, repeats of Trek had Spock and Kirk defeating robots with the liar's para…

And yet we still don’t have Data or the Holographic Doctor.

Re: Testing Generative AI for Circuit Board Design

#96

Post by yousif_123123 »

HanClinto wrote: post #14

This feels like an excellent demonstration of the limitation of zero-shot LLMs. It feels like the wrong way to approach this. I'm no expert in the matter, but for "holistic" things (where there are a lot of cross-connections and inter-dependencies) it feels like a diffusion-based generative structure would be better-suited than next-token-prediction. I've felt this way about poetry-generation, and I feel like it migh…

One downside for diffusion based systems (and I'm very noob in this) is that the model won't be able to see it's input and output in the same space, therefore wouldn't be able to do follow-up instructions to fix things or improve on it. Where as an LLM generating html could follow instructions to modify it as well. It's input and output are the same format.

Re: Testing Generative AI for Circuit Board Design

#97

Post by goatlover »

echelon wrote: post #72
surfingdino wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This feels like an excellent demonstration of the limitation of zero-shot LLMs. It feels like the wrong way to approach this. There is one posted on HN every week. How many more do we need to accept the fact this tech is not what it is sold at and we are bored waiting for it get good? I am not say "get better", because it keeps getting better, but somehow doesn't get good.

I'm in awe of the progress in AI images, music, and video. This is probably where AI shines the most. Soon everything you see and hear will be built up through a myriad of AI models and pipelines.

I sincerely hope not. Talk about a dystopian future. That’s even worse than what social media has become.

Re: Testing Generative AI for Circuit Board Design

#98

Post by ben_w »

goatlover wrote: post #95
ben_w wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But is that really it? I'm all ears. I'm on a 5 hour flight. I'm genuinely unclear on whats going on that leads people to take this absolutist position that they're waiting for ??? to admit ??? about LLMs. Irony: humans think in very black-and-white terms, one could even say boolean; conversely LLMs display subtly and nuance. When I was a kid, repeats of Trek had Spock and Kirk defeating robots with the liar's para…

And yet we still don’t have Data or the Holographic Doctor.

You're demonstrating my point :)

When we get to that level, we're all out of work.

In the meantime, LLMs are already basically as good as the scriptwriters made the TNG-VOY era starship computers act.

Re: Testing Generative AI for Circuit Board Design

#99

Post by refulgentis »

goatlover wrote: post #93
makk wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a perception and the problem isn’t the AI it’s human nature: 1. every time AI is able to do a thing we move the goalposts and say, yeah, but it can’t do that other thing over there; 2. We are impatient, so our ability to get bored tends to outpace the rate of change.

The other side of this coin is everyone overhyping what AI can do, and when the inevitable criticism comes, they respond by claiming the goal posts are being moved. Perhaps, but you also told me it could do XYZ, when it can only do X and some Y, but not much Z, and it’s still not general intelligence in the he broad sense.

I appreciate this comment because I think it really demonstrates the core problem with what I'll call the "get off my lawn >:|" argument, because it's avowedly about personal emotions.

It's not "general intelligence", so it's over hyped, and They get so whiny about the inevitable criticism, and They are ignoring that it's so mindnumbingly boring to have people making the excuse that "designed a circuit board from scratch" wasn't something anyone thinks or claims an LLM should do.

Who told you LLMs can design circuit boards?

Who told you LLMs are [artificial] general intelligence?

I get sick of it constantly being everywhere, but I don't feel the need to intellectualize it in a way that blames the nefarious ???

Post reply on HN