183 points by maxall4 about 20 hours ago | 123 comments | View on ycombinator
pama about 18 hours ago |
peri-cl about 9 hours ago |
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.
program_whiz about 18 hours ago |
muchdoubt about 18 hours ago |
9cb14c1ec0 about 7 hours ago |
karim79 about 19 hours ago |
xpct about 18 hours ago |
jimmySixDOF about 14 hours ago |
BatchJob about 5 hours ago |
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.
amelius about 19 hours ago |
dfedbeef about 3 hours ago |
geraneum about 18 hours ago |
gozucito about 18 hours ago |
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.
ramshanker about 18 hours ago |
google234123 about 18 hours ago |
delusional about 10 hours ago |
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.
globnomulous about 14 hours ago |
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?
cute_boi about 19 hours ago |
alescalaios about 10 hours ago |
tobiasu about 8 hours ago |
> 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.