undefined

points

[-]

Yes, obviously. But do we think LLMs without access to proprietary information do a better job with them than Broadcom's human experts or existing proprietary tools at this level of operations?

It is still a bold claim and it still needs evidence.

We would obviously get a bit more of the evidence if it were to be more useful for the upcoming IPO than this rather open-ended, reinterpretable phrasing.

by fc417fc80217 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> do a better job with them than Broadcom's human experts or existing proprietary tools

No, obviously. They'd be expected to do a substantially worse job and yet still drastically accelerate the design process.

LLMs make all sorts of dumb mistakes when writing c++ or python yet are nonetheless massively beneficial.

by dpe821 days ago|

prev|

[-]

I don't understand why you're getting downvoted.

I've used GPT-5.5 and Opus both for FPGA design with good results. We built a lot of tooling around it to help the models, but even without that they're definitely capable of designing digital logic.

by dmitrygr22 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

My guess: it is that those who KNOW the subject realize that LLMs suck at it, and those who do not, do not realize it, since their output is plausible, and sometimes even works.

This actually plays out across every field and is well documented. An expert can recognize the hallucinations and bullshit coming out of LLMs, while non-experts see plausible output and do not know enough to know it is BS.

by stevenhuang20 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Wrong. Myself and colleagues know the subject and they are useful in FPGA design. You should stop hallucinating about topics you don't have experience in.