115 points maxall4 9 hours ago 82 comments
karim79 9 hours ago | parent
asveikau 9 hours ago | parent
glitchc 8 hours ago | parent
honeycrispy 8 hours ago | parent
Like, why couldn't they invent a new word and not hijack an existing word?
karim79 8 hours ago | parent
imtringued 37 minutes ago | parent
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
amelius 8 hours ago | parent
seanmcdirmid 8 hours ago | parent
smitty1e 7 hours ago | parent
Duanemclemore 6 hours ago | parent
damowangcy 5 hours ago | parent
amelius 9 hours ago | parent
bigyabai 9 hours ago | parent
pixl97 9 hours ago | parent
amelius 9 hours ago | parent
The value lies in the design space exploration, which is what an LLM can easily do.
wmf 8 hours ago | parent
cmrdporcupine 8 hours ago | parent
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.
nr378 7 hours ago | parent
[1] https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/snapdragon-x2-elite...
[2] https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/macbook-pro-14-inch-2026-...
bhouston 8 hours ago | parent
Lramseyer 8 hours ago | parent
There are people working on PPA optimization and trying to shake up how things are done, just not with LLMs.
btown 8 hours ago | parent
xpct 7 hours ago | parent
thfuran 6 hours ago | parent
menaerus 2 hours ago | parent
I wonder why not or you meant not suitable yet?
Systemerror7A69 1 hour ago | parent
xpct 7 hours ago | parent
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.
nullc 6 hours ago | parent
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.
pama 8 hours ago | parent
> 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.
wmf 6 hours ago | parent
marcelo-earth 3 hours ago | parent
is the world we live in, planning things while waiting for a more powerful LLM
geraneum 8 hours ago | parent
muchdoubt 7 hours ago | parent
program_whiz 7 hours ago | parent
stogot 6 hours ago | parent
wmf 6 hours ago | parent
mathisfun123 6 hours ago | parent
Newsflash that lawsuit is about product designs not accelerator ASICs. And there wouldn't be anything to steal because Apple doesn't have any DC class accelerators.
m00x 1 hour ago | parent
gozucito 7 hours ago | parent
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.
red75prime 3 hours ago | parent
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.
chrisjj 9 minutes ago | parent
xpct 7 hours ago | parent
jimmySixDOF 4 hours ago | parent
Kwpolska 1 hour ago | parent
globnomulous 3 hours ago | parent
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?
caidan 48 minutes ago | parent
perching_aix 42 minutes ago | parent
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?
delusional 4 minutes ago | parent
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.