←back to thread

320 points laserduck | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.417s | source
Show context
alain94040 ◴[] No.42157355[source]
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 getting much of a long tail effect in chip design. Taping out a chip is just not something a hacker can do, and even playing with an FPGA has a high cost of entry compared to hacking on your PC.

But if there was an obvious path forward, YC wouldn't need to ask for an innovative approach.

replies(4): >>42157791 #>>42157811 #>>42158157 #>>42168449 #
1. jeltz ◴[] No.42157811[source]
> But if there was an obvious path forward, YC wouldn't need to ask for an innovative approach.

How many experts do YC have on chip design?

replies(1): >>42158795 #
2. alain94040 ◴[] No.42158795[source]
I know several founders who went through YC in the chip design space, so even if the people running YC don't have a chip design background, just like VCs, they learn from hearing pitches of the founders who actually know the space.