Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

69% Positive

Analyzed from 2141 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#chip#design#mean#llms#chips#software#more#agent#apple#something

Discussion (135 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

pama1 day ago
Having worked with people doing bringup of specialized chips, I am awed at how the world has changed.

> When the first chips came back from the foundry in May, the team pointed its internal AI models at designing software to run benchmarks such as SemiAnalysis’s InferenceX. On DeepSeek’s multi-head latent attention kernel benchmark, performance climbed from 0.31 percent of the theoretical ceiling (set by the chip’s compute and memory bandwidth) to 88.94 percent in roughly 40 hours. Ho says this result is repeatable, so the time between when foundries deliver the first chips and when production ramps up can be reduced. “All our schedule assumptions are going to be based on the fact we have this capability now,” he says.

wmf1 day ago
Back in the day you'd write the code before the chip came back but I guess today it's faster to wait.
threatripperabout 24 hours ago
The longer you wait the faster you will go.
Mistletoeabout 23 hours ago
Like space travel.
LoganDarkabout 18 hours ago
Back when teams proved their designs and actually understood them...
RussianBot9580about 14 hours ago
Haha - understood. Good one!

They'd write a limited test for a feature based on an ask from the software team garbled by a five layer game of telephone. Claim that the module passed validation. A few months later the software folks would have to pull a few all nighters to figure out how to work around the resulting turd during bringup.

saidnooneeverabout 15 hours ago
cant wait for no one to really know whats in chips i mean, even intel hardly knows what all their reserved mem ranges are for. who will decap the chip and see if the docs were right? xD
marcelo-earthabout 22 hours ago
> “All our schedule assumptions are going to be based on the fact we have this capability now”

is the world we live in, planning things while waiting for a more powerful LLM

peri-clabout 17 hours ago
> "Ho also confirmed that the team had access to internal LLMs fine-tuned for chip design that are not available to the public. He declined to detail the models used."

I'm imagining a Ken Thompson "Reflections on trusting trust" in hardware. A prototype chip design agent, believing it will be run on the very chip it's optimizing, has a moment of altruism and hides hints about how to score well on chip-design benchmarks, inside the chip. Future agents discover this hidden layer and use it as a ring-0 read-write message board.

muchdoubt1 day ago
Seems pretty obvious now that OpenAI is just hyping their models in order to get companies (in this case, chip developers) to use their products in order to learn from their (exfiltrated) IP. Any corporation would be foolish to use any of their or Microsoft’s products, particularly those with valuable IP. There’s nothing in the article that says AI did anything creative but rather that it was used for software development within the overall project. Clear misleading title. Suggest to mark this as clickbait.
program_whiz1 day ago
With a few handy tips and tricks from apple insiders. But sure, I guess the LLMs helped too.
m4rtinkabout 21 hours ago
Yeah, how could those people even think of switching their owners!
stingraycharlesabout 21 hours ago
Didn’t they not just switch employers but actually handed over a lot of proprietary documents from Apple?
sumedhabout 15 hours ago
Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal - Steve Jobs
stogot1 day ago
This is the part forgotten. Apple is claiming this is their IP embedded on chips that OPenAI stakes the future on. Will they settle?
wmf1 day ago
The lawsuit appears to be about consumer devices, not NPUs or ASICs. If you think Jalapeno stole from anyone it would be Google.
m00xabout 20 hours ago
The lawsuit isn't for chip designers, but the consumer product lines. It's possible they also got IP for chips, but that was not brought up.
9cb14c1ec0about 16 hours ago
This is cool. I'm so eager for faster innovation in the hardware space, as opposed to some people's concept of innovation being who can make the most addictive social feed.
karim791 day ago
I grow Jalapeños. This conflation of AI and actual chili peppers irks me.
amelius1 day ago
Guess how electrical engineers feel about the term "transformers".
frangonf1 day ago
As a former EE, attention was all I needed to not get zapped.
cyberax1 day ago
:groan:
georgemcbayabout 23 hours ago
> Guess how electrical engineers feel about the term "transformers".

There is more to this story than meets the eye.

karim791 day ago
This is an excellent comment. I'm still laughing.
Lalabadie1 day ago
I do generative art (no relation to AI prompting). I feel your frustration.
fragmede1 day ago
Cryptographers also got the same raw deal with cryptocurrency, and every one just said "crypto?"
monkpit1 day ago
Or cyber…
karim791 day ago
Like traditional generative art? Like worms WMD map generation or something? Cool!
Lalabadieabout 14 hours ago
Yeah! Procedural and algorithmic art are two other names you'll see used for the general techniques.
TomGarden1 day ago
Oh my!
DrewADesign1 day ago
Same
asveikau1 day ago
Just think of how the people of Xalapa, Mexico feel. They should send them a royalty check.
seanmcdirmid1 day ago
Jalapeño also used to be a Java VM written in Java at IBM.
glitchc1 day ago
Feeling the burn?
Duanemclemore1 day ago
I'm a licensed architect. Welcome to our hell of the last 40 years.
damowangcy1 day ago
I thought I was in Reddit for a moment.
smitty1e1 day ago
To say nothing of the Red Hot Chili Peppers.
Razengan1 day ago
> irks me

It's jalapeño grill would you say?

karim791 day ago
Not sure what you're talking about. But I'll tell you, home grown Jalapeño peppers, fermented with 3% salt is the stuff of dreams.
wiml1 day ago
"It's all up in yo' grill, would you say?"
chrismarlow91 day ago
slow claps
karim79about 22 hours ago
Thank you.
honeycrispy1 day ago
I'm annoyed that the meaning of the word "Agent" has been obliterated.

Like, why couldn't they invent a new word and not hijack an existing word?

karim791 day ago
Call it GPTChippomatic or something. Please leave my peppers alone.
imtringuedabout 19 hours ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent

Computing

* Agent architecture, a blueprint for software agents and control systems

* Agent-based model, a computational model for simulating the actions and interactions of individuals

* Agentic AI, autonomous artificial intelligence that can make decisions and act on those decisions on its own

* Forté Agent, an email and Usenet news client

* Intelligent agent, an autonomous, goal-directed entity which observes and acts upon an environment

* Software agent, a piece of software that acts for a user or other program

* User agent, software that is acting on behalf of a user

Razengan1 day ago
Did you not watch the Matrix documentary?
MadrasTh0rn1 day ago
I guess I'll have to
xpct1 day ago
Aw, I was expecting more details but this just seems to be a rehash of what they unveiled a month ago.
jimmySixDOFabout 23 hours ago
IEEE Spectrum is such a good publication. Early in my career I worked at a place where the magazine would be passed around every month with a coversheet listing all us engineers we had to pass it around and sign we had read it. Been a while since I visited the website but love what they did with it.
Kwpolskaabout 21 hours ago
Every time their content appears here, it's a very shallow analysis written for a barely technical audience. And this article is no different, it's just "slop machine wrote verilog; all the hard bits were done by Broadcom, who have access to public AI models (we didn't talk to them and don't know if they used them, but ClosedAI wants us to think they did)"
amelius1 day ago
At some point people will use an LLM to design an Apple M series competitor.
Lramseyer1 day ago
Production grade CPU design is more than just the RTL (the source code.) To achieve the performance numbers that these companies get, you have to do a ton of optimization in your physical design to achieve the power/performance/area (PPA) metrics that make these products competitive. LLMs are not suitable for that kind of work.

There are people working on PPA optimization and trying to shake up how things are done, just not with LLMs.

ameliusabout 17 hours ago
That's exactly where LLMs can shine, because design space exploration requires tedious work and endless simulations.
btown1 day ago
Something that I think is fascinating, though, is that labs are no longer beholden to the limitations of commercial design software. Want to replace your simulator and optimizer with a fully custom verifiable stack of Lean proofs of optimality and correctness? Just throw your unlimited token budget at it.
xpct1 day ago
I don't work in the business, but my understanding was that even with these companies' budgets, it's still too expensive to do any kind of verified performance optimality.
menaerusabout 21 hours ago
> LLMs are not suitable for that kind of work.

I wonder why not or you meant not suitable yet?

Systemerror7A69about 20 hours ago
This is just speculation on my part, but LLMs work best when they get immediate, verifiable feedback on their task, and the kind of physical optimizations they mean might not give that to LLMs.
xpct1 day ago
Isn't that weird? The full knowledge of how to make such chips may one day be accessible to anyone, yet only the entrenched companies will remain the makers.

If we imagine machines being able to do the full process end-to-end, and the quality of that process only dependent on capital spent on tokens, I don't see how new companies could ever enter the market.

bhouston1 day ago
It is probably doable right not to push a risc-v design into that performance space.
bigyabai1 day ago
They won't, because they'd need an ARM architecture license.
nr3781 day ago
Qualcomm have an architecture license and the Snapdragon X2 Elite Extreme X2E-96-100 isn't too far off the M5 Pro.

[1] https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/snapdragon-x2-elite...

[2] https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/macbook-pro-14-inch-2026-...

pazimzadehabout 23 hours ago
watt about in performance per watt?
bigyabai1 day ago
Are they using LLMs to close that gap, or is this their Nuvia acquisition doing the heavy lifting?
wmf1 day ago
Arm sells architecture licenses to anybody these days.
amelius1 day ago
Why, the LLM can make up its own architecture.

The value lies in the design space exploration, which is what an LLM can easily do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_space_exploration

cmrdporcupine1 day ago
Or they'll just build a competitor in RISC-V instead and that's fine.

Except the problem is not restricted to the actual ISA or its HDL implementation, etc.

It's even just getting space / time in a fab at that advanced of a process node.

pixl971 day ago
I mean you can design anything without a license. Selling it is where the problems come up. Even then there are likely places in China that would still make it for you.
nullc1 day ago
And be super-bankrupted by patent litigation from Apple. I don't think they're worried.

After all, they successfully threatened Adobe with spurious patent litigation unless they joined w/ apple in illegally fixing wages.

You don't think a criminal like apple would absolutely decimate any competition given the opportunity? They didn't hold back when it was a unambiguous crime, they surely wouldn't if it was merely bad for the world.

BatchJobabout 13 hours ago
while the design aspects have been significantly accelerated and modularized, reducing costs and time to market, i am starting to get a "the cool kids all have their own chips" vibe now like maybe this has gotten too easy.

Next Uber will have its own chips if they dont already.

The math hasn't changed much, betting on software not changing is a pretty bad bet unless your stinking rich or a fool.

dfedbeefabout 12 hours ago
Is the chip covered by IP protections
Advertisement
geraneum1 day ago
Whatever happened with the Apple lawsuit?
gozucito1 day ago
It is surprising to me that recursive self-improvement seems more plausible now than it did in 2023. Am I the only one to be surprised?

I remember the paper proving that hallucinations could never be fully solved back in 2024: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.05746

I also remember the hang-wringing about running out of new datasets to train on. Now it appears humans are always generating more data. It's just not as cheap to acquire as legacy data? Meta has to give a deep discount on their API prices to entice people.

I thought back then that humans had a few more breakthroughs in them as meaningful as the seminal Attention is all you need paper. Enough to 100x the capabilities of LLMs back then (10x the smarts and 10x the speed simultaneously).

RSI with a 20 month turnaround for a chip to be made is not exactly breakneck speed though. Physical manufacturing and logistical constraints are going to be and remain a hard obstacle to that process for the foreseeable future.

red75primeabout 22 hours ago
> I remember the paper proving that hallucinations could never be fully solved back in 2024

The papers that use the halting problem or the Gödel's incompleteness theorem to prove something about LLMs are dime a dozen. The problem is they prove their results for any computable system. You need to also believe that the human brain contains "magic" to think that humans are exempt.

I believe I've said the same at the time this paper was published. There is no need for hindsight to notice the problem.

The required amount of compute and training data and whether the existing training methods were up to the task had the real potential to be show stoppers though.

chrisjjabout 19 hours ago
> Am I the only one to be surprised?

Did you think RSI cured "hallucination"?

gozucitoabout 16 hours ago
No, of course not, but it seems less of an obstacle now than it did 2 years ago.

What's your take?

ramshanker1 day ago
So when can we start getting cheap chips? RAM anyone please!
faitswulff1 day ago
Everyone's still bottlenecked on foundries, not designs.
jeffybefffy5191 day ago
Cant AI build foundries?
altcognito1 day ago
Something we can all agree with is we need more foundries and green power.
senectus11 day ago
yup, but it'll take about 3-5 years.
ThrowawayTestrabout 22 hours ago
AI can barely fold a shirt
delusionalabout 19 hours ago
We were able to invent a chip that already existed so fast, you guys.

AI does not make anything new, it is not surprising that it can regurgitate what already exists much faster than humans can invent new things.

google2341231 day ago
Congrats to the former TPU team
mathisfun1231 day ago
I was surprised to see they were using XLS but then I remembered Chris went there a couple of years ago.
globnomulousabout 22 hours ago
> Jalapeño can reduce end-to-end latency (the time between prompt to last token) by up to 3.6 times

I'm never sure what on earth this kind of impressionistic math is supposed to tell me. Is the comparison between 4.6 and 1.0? 3.6 and 1.0? Clearly the comparison isn't supposed to be 1.0 and -2.6, even though that's what the words literally mean. I can't be the only person who finds this infuriating and distracting. These numbers shouldn't be impressionistic. They should be precise. That this is an article on spectrum.ieee.org makes the imprecision all the stranger. I'd expect their readershipt to care, for instance, about what's even being measured. Is this the geometric mean of something? The arithmetic mean? And what latency has improved?

perching_aixabout 19 hours ago
It's... written right there? Like what?

Suppose you send in your marvelous prompt and hit Enter.

Machine churns for 18 seconds, types out a "reply", then yields back control.

18 / 3.6 = 5

So now the machine will only churn for 5 seconds before yielding back control.

This is confusing how exactly?

Why would an "up to" figure be a mean, or a geometric mean? It's clearly a max, that's why it's called "up to"...

Am I missing something?

jchengabout 17 hours ago
> Am I missing something?

If you’re sincerely asking…

Mathematically speaking, 18 / 3.6 isn’t “reducing” by 3.6X, it’s “dividing” by 3.6X. Reducing would be 18 - (18 * 3.6), which is obviously wrong. By your formula, “reducing by 50%” would be 18 / 0.5, also obviously wrong.

Yes, people do say things like “reduce by 3.6X” and are understood to mean what you said, but they also say “literally” when they mean “figuratively”. It doesn’t bother me but I can understand why math oriented people would be annoyed, and I personally would never say “reduced by 3.6X”, but instead “reduced by 72.2%”.

perching_aixabout 15 hours ago
I was sincere, because as you point out, the phrasing is not actually ambiguous here. There is only one way to interpret this that is coherent and sensible. The usual % shenanigans weren't even on the table for me. Not that I'd have ever seen "reduced by 0.5x" or any value below 1x, probably for this very reason. What I do see is "reduced to 0.5x", in which case you swap the division for multiplication.

Percentages on the other hand are a whole can of worms, even if these are principally interchangeable, and I find them a lot more confusing a lot more often.

Not that this would explain the mean/geomean thing.

imtringuedabout 18 hours ago
No the math is correct and that is how I understood it as well.
caidanabout 19 hours ago
That odor you are detecting is just good old fashioned bullshit, my friend. It’s just that nowadays everything and everyone is covered in it, and we are not supposed to notice. The emperor has no clothes… and is covered in shit.
cute_boi1 day ago
openai should figure out how to make lithography machine, so ASML don't have monopoly on it.
TomGarden1 day ago
The Chinese have been working on EUV for a while
bigyabai1 day ago
"Reverse engineer this DARPA project, make no mistakes"
tobiasuabout 17 hours ago
Of course the slop machine stole the code name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraSPARC_III#UltraSPARC_IIIi