←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: 0.324s | 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 #
1. ithkuil ◴[16 Nov 24 21:39 UTC] No.42159585[source]▶
I'm a non-deterministic black box who teaches complex deterministic machines to do stuff and leverages other deterministic machines as tools to do the job.

I like my job.

My job also involves cooperating with other non-deterministic black boxes (colleagues).

I can totally see how artificial non-deterministic black boxes (artificial colleagues) may be useful to replace/augment the biological ones.

For one, artificial colleagues don't get tired and I don't accidentally hurt their feelings or whatnot.

In any case, I'm not looking forward to replacing my deterministic tools with the fuzzy AI stuff.

Intuitively at least it seems to me that these non-deterministic black boxes could really benefit from using the deterministic tools for pretty much the same reasons we do as well.