←back to thread

YC is wrong about LLMs for chip design

(www.zach.be)
317 points laserduck | 1 comments | 16 Nov 24 14:07 UTC | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
klabb3 ◴[16 Nov 24 17:05 UTC] No.42157457[source]▶
I don’t mind LLMs in the ideation and learning phases, which aren’t reproducible anyway. But I still find it hard to believe engineers of all people are eager to put a slow, expensive, non-deterministic black box right at the core of extremely complex systems that need to be reliable, inspectable, understandable…
replies(6): >>42157615 #>>42157652 #>>42158074 #>>42162081 #>>42166294 #>>42167109 #
brookst ◴[16 Nov 24 17:37 UTC] No.42157652[source]▶
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?
replies(7): >>42157709 #>>42157955 #>>42158073 #>>42159585 #>>42159656 #>>42171900 #>>42172228 #
beepbooptheory ◴[16 Nov 24 17:45 UTC] No.42157709[source]▶
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.
replies(5): >>42157743 #>>42157792 #>>42157794 #>>42158219 #>>42158270 #
1. therealcamino ◴[16 Nov 24 17:56 UTC] No.42157792[source]▶
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.