←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: 0.001s | source
Show context
EgoIncarnate ◴[16 Nov 24 16:57 UTC] No.42157406[source]▶
The article seems to be be based on the current limitations of LLMs. I don't think YC and other VCs are betting on what LLMs can do today, I think they are betting on what they might be able to do in the future.

As we've seen in the recent past, it's difficult to predict what the possibilities are for LLMS and what limitations will hold. Currently it seems pure scaling won't be enough, but I don't think we've reached the limits with synthetic data and reasoning.

replies(4): >>42157469 #>>42157563 #>>42157650 #>>42157754 #
DeathArrow ◴[16 Nov 24 17:08 UTC] No.42157469[source]▶
>The article seems to be be based on the current limitations of LLMs. I don't think YC and other VCs are betting on what LLMs can do today, I think they are betting on what they might be able to do in the future.

Do we know what LLMs will be able to do in the future? And even if we know, the startups have to work with what they have now, until that future comes. The article states that there's not much to work with.

replies(1): >>42157664 #
brookst ◴[16 Nov 24 17:39 UTC] No.42157664[source]▶
Show me a successful startup that was predicated on the tech they’re working with not advancing?
replies(4): >>42157914 #>>42158080 #>>42158193 #>>42159132 #
1. teamonkey ◴[16 Nov 24 20:41 UTC] No.42159132[source]▶
The notion of a startup gaining funding to develop a fantasy into reality is relatively new.

It used to be that startups would be created to do something different with existing tech or to commercialise a newly-discovered - but real - innovation.