nemonemo

Why does this sound very much like the argument toward full self-driving? If drivers need to be watchful of mostly autonomous ones, they get bored and lose attention or sometimes take nap in front of the steering wheel. Waymo came out of an extension of this argument..

Maybe this could be used to track how some spoken language changes over time in a region or across regions.

Isn't this basically the mythical man-months LLM edition?

What do you think EB visas are: immigrant visas or work visas? Answer: they are both.

Isn't a literal "moat" about temporary deterrence? I can imagine makeshift bridges could permanently make the moat useless.

Maybe in 10 years when the tech matures, but IMO now seems a bit too early to have a tech like this. It is like intelligence without evolution or progress.. yes it can be used in some niche markets, but difficult to be generic.

Just like any useful tools, there would be an expert super tool user who could probably generate enough profit based on the tools. The majority would not profit from it in the long run (the monopolistic tool makers would reap any profit from the value chain.)

Not sure what you mean by "it", but the doubled usage would be 18h a day.

Yes, it overlaps well with the market open time. But I thought Claude was good with coding... Does this mean major trading agents write code using Claude to make trading decisions? Or Claude models are relatively better than other models in non-coding trading work?

One thing I don't understand is how come Gemini Pro seems much cheaper than Gemini Flash in the scatter graph.

Fair point. Asked Gemini to suggest alternatives, and it suggested Gemini Velocity, Gemini Atom, Gemini Axiom (and more). I would have liked `Gemini Velocity`.

The danger of short form videos is because the form enables the algorithm designer to artificially maximize the reward with minimum effort by the viewer. It doesn't matter whether you watch kitten ones initially. After watching it for a month casually, chances are you would end up watching some addictive videos for hours with little effort. It could be some endless stream of Buddhist monks talking about suffering, if someone likes that kind of thing. It's just designed to be addictive with crazy high reward/effort ratio.

Have you considered a case where English might not be the authors' first language? They may have written a draft in their mother tongue and merely translated it using LLMs. Its style may not be many people's liking, but this is a technical manuscript, and I would think the novelty of the ideas is what matters here, more than the novelty of proses.

What you are obsessing with is about the writer's style, not its substance. How sure are you if they outsourced the thinking to LLMs? Do you assume LLMs produce junk-level contents, which contributes human brain rot? What if their contents are of higher quality like the game of Go? Wouldn't you rather study their writing?

Are you saying human brain is kind of similarly vulnerable to well-crafted facts? Does it mean any intelligence (human or non-human) needs a large amount of generally factual data to discern facts from fakes, which is an argument toward AIs that can accumulate huge swath of factual data?

Agreed in principle, but has anyone seen any practical difference between these DNS services? What would be a more detailed downside for using these in parallel instead of the ISP default as a fallback?

Wikipedia article about Consciousness opens with an interesting line: "Defining consciousness is challenging; about forty meanings are attributed to the term."

Perhaps "consciousness" is just a poor term to use in a scientific discussion.

How can writing marks help in this regard? I can imagine a language with both a lot of exceptions and writing marks.

We need to balance the benefit and the downside of the limited liability in corporations. If innovation no longer becomes beneficial for the society and only beneficial for a small number of people, perhaps the society may need to reconsider the concept.

Thank you. Updated my comment again.

The answer says "For rings in which division by 2 is permitted". Is there the same constraint for AlphaEvolve's algorithm?

Edit2: Z_2 has characteristics 2.

Edit: AlphaEvolve claims it works over any field with characteristic 0. It appears Waksman's could be an existing work. From the AlphaEvolve paper: "For 56 years, designing an algorithm with fewer than 49 multiplications over any field with characteristic 0 was an open problem. AlphaEvolve is the first method to find an algorithm to multiply two 4 × 4 complex-valued matrices using 48 multiplications."

This sounds like a great idea, but how do you keep it from being "drained" or hydrated?

Wouldn't you say the same thing for most of the people? Most of the people suck at verifying truth and reasoning. Even "intelligent" people make mistakes based on their biases.

I think at least LLMs are more receptive to the idea that they may be wrong, and based on that, we can have N diverse LLMs and they may argue more peacefully and build a reliable consensus than N "intelligent" people.

According to the Martial Law Act, there's an extra power by the martial law commander to move the military as they want.

Some translations say "guarding martial law" instead of "precautionary": https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=45785&type... "Once guarding martial law is declared, the martial law commander shall have authority over the administrative and judicial matters concerning the military of the area where martial law is declared."

But this time it was the emergency one.

Could you please point out the specific lines you are dissatisfied with? Is it something an additional publication cannot resolve?

Additionally, in case you forgot to answer, what is your wish for the future of this line of research? Do you hope to see it improve the EDA status quo, or would you prefer the work to stop entirely? If it is the latter, I would have no intention of continuing this conversation.

> direct comparisons in Cheng

That's the ISPD paper referenced many times in this whole thread.

> Stronger Baselines

Re: "Stronger baselines", the paper "That Chip Has Sailed" says "We provided the committee with one-line scripts that generated significantly better RL results than those reported in Markov et al., outperforming their “stronger” simulated annealing baseline." What is your take on this claim?

As for 'regurgitating,' I don’t think it helps Jeff Dean’s point either. Based on my and vighneshiyer's discussion above, describing the work as "fundamentally flawed" does not seem far-fetched. If Cheng and Kahng do not agree with this, I believe they can publish another invited paper.

On 'belittle,' my main issue was with your follow-up phrase, 'that’s what you’d expect.' It comes across as overly emotional and detracts from the discussion.

Regarding lack of follow-ups (I am aware of), the substantial resources required for this work seem beyond what academia can easily replicate. Additionally, according to "the Saga" article, both non-Jeff Dean authors have left Google until recently, but their Twitter/X/LinkedIn seem to say they came back to Google and seem to have worked on this "Sailing Chip" paper.

Personally, I hope they reignite their efforts on RL in EDA and work toward democratizing their methods so that other researchers can build new systems on their foundation. What are your thoughts? Do you hope they improve and refine their approach in future work, or do you believe there should be no continuation of this line of research?

> Direct comparisons from the last 3 years show that AlphaChip is worse.

Do you have any evidence to claim this? The whole point of this thread is that the direct comparisons might have been insufficient, and even the author of "The Saga" article who's biased against the AlphaChip work agreed.

> Granted, Google is belittling these comparisons, but that's what you'd expect.

This kind of language doesn't help any position you want to advocate.

About "the potential to disrupt", a potential is a potential. It's an initial work. What I find interesting is that people are so eager to assert that it's a dead-end without sufficient exploration.

We're not just talking about academia—Google's AlphaChip has the potential to disrupt the balance of the EDA industry's duopoly. It seems unlikely that Google could easily secure the policy or license changes necessary to publish direct comparisons in this context.

If publicizing comparisons of CMPs is as permissible as you suggest, have you seen a publication that directly compares a Cadence macro placement tool with a Synopsys tool? If I were the technically superior party, I’d be eager to showcase the fairest possible comparison, complete with transparent benchmarks and tools. In the CPU design space, we often see standardized benchmarking tools like SPEC microbenchmarks and gaming benchmarks. (And IMO that's part of why AMD could disrupt the PC market.) Does the EDA ecosystem support a similarly open culture of benchmarking for commercial tools?

The UCSD paper says "We thank ... colleagues at Cadence and Synopsys for policy changes that permit our methods and results to be reproducible and sharable in the open, toward advancement of research in the field." This suggests that there may have been policies restricting publication prior to this work. It would be intriguing to see if future research on AlphaChip could receive a similar endorsement or support from these EDA companies.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Acknowledging potential biases openly in a public forum is never easy, and in my view, it adds credibility to your words compared to leaving such matters as implicit insinuations.

That said, on page 8, the paper says that 'standard licensing agreements with commercial vendors prohibit public comparison with their offerings.' Given this inherent limitation, what alternative approach could have been taken to enable a more meaningful comparison between CT and CMP?