4 ms·

The article you linked is not an example of this happening. Google open-sourced the chip design method, and uses it in production for TPU and other chips. http

The article you linked is not an example of this happening. Google open-sourced the chip design method, and uses it in production for TPU and other chips. https://github.com/google-research/circuit_training https://github.com/google-research/circuit_training https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/how-alphachip-transformed-computer-chip-design/ https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/how-alphachip-transfor...

dekhn 2y ago
It's an ongoing debacle with multiple people making extremely good arguments that Google overstated the results. Yes, I know it's in TPUs and I said exactly that. You simply can't take Google press at face value.
- warbaker 2y ago
  Google has responded to this "controversy" already: https://x.com/JeffDean/status/1858540085794451906 https://x.com/JeffDean/status/1858540085794451906 https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.10053 https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.10053
  - dekhn 2y ago
    Yes, I am aware. I didn't find Jeff's argument particularly convincing. Please note: I've worked personally with Jeff before and shared many a coffee with him. He's done great work and messed up a lot of things, too.
    - confused_boner 2y ago
      From your perspective, which arguments were not convincing, are you able to share why not?
      - Der_Einzige 2y ago
        Unironically "just trust me bro" is actually fine here. They're objectively right and you'll find they are when you do your painstaking analysis to figure it out.
- mupuff1234 2y ago
  > You simply can't take Google press at face value. I think that's true for virtually every company and also for most people (in the context of published work)
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Do you think that of most published scientific research?
    - tho3i4j3242324 2y ago
      Seems to be true. 'Published' scientific research, by its sheer social-dynamics (verging on highly toxic), is the academic equivalent of a pouty-girl vis-a-vis Instagram. (academic-burnout resembles creator-burnout for similar reasons)

dekhn 2y ago

It's an ongoing debacle with multiple people making extremely good arguments that Google overstated the results. Yes, I know it's in TPUs and I said exactly that. You simply can't take Google press at face value.

warbaker 2y ago
Google has responded to this "controversy" already: https://x.com/JeffDean/status/1858540085794451906 https://x.com/JeffDean/status/1858540085794451906 https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.10053 https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.10053
- dekhn 2y ago
  Yes, I am aware. I didn't find Jeff's argument particularly convincing. Please note: I've worked personally with Jeff before and shared many a coffee with him. He's done great work and messed up a lot of things, too.
  - confused_boner 2y ago
    From your perspective, which arguments were not convincing, are you able to share why not?
    - Der_Einzige 2y ago
      Unironically "just trust me bro" is actually fine here. They're objectively right and you'll find they are when you do your painstaking analysis to figure it out.
mupuff1234 2y ago
> You simply can't take Google press at face value. I think that's true for virtually every company and also for most people (in the context of published work)
- mmooss 2y ago
  Do you think that of most published scientific research?
  - tho3i4j3242324 2y ago
    Seems to be true. 'Published' scientific research, by its sheer social-dynamics (verging on highly toxic), is the academic equivalent of a pouty-girl vis-a-vis Instagram. (academic-burnout resembles creator-burnout for similar reasons)