krupan

Remember when ChatGPT first came out and the coolest thing you could do with it was ask it to say something in pirate speak, or in the style of Tolkein, or Obama, or whatever? Maybe that should still be a thing ;)

You hit the nail on the head

And yet you remain aggressively pro AI? Why?

You realize they are aiming to replace you, don't you? You are paying them to do so, and giving them information they need do do it. For free.

It's the method they used to create the proof that's in question here. They claim their amazing product did it, and therefore you should buy their product because will do amazing things for you too!

Yes, I understand all that. The original author points out that completely ditching sha-1 will be a huge pain, very costly, and won't meaningfully improve security. You responded by saying we aren't completely ditching sha-1, which seems to lend credence to the argument that sha-1 is still safe enough to use. That's where I'm confused. Having two hashes for each object in a git repo, a sha-1 and a sha256, is not the same as wholesale deleting your rsa-1024 keys and replacing them with rsa-2048. If I'm only looking at the sha-1 and all my tools only look at that, then the sha256 isn't helping me. Is it?

If we are changing to sha256 because sha-1 is broken, how can we trust all those mappings and signatures?? This makes it even more confusing as to why this change is being made

A proprietary LLM developed to run these proprietary tools might just maybe have guards in place to prevent it from telling you any details about what it's doing, lest you learn enough to not need that LLM

You are absolutely correct. The whole reason LLMs kinda suck at chip design (compared to say, writing react apps) is because chip designers are and have always been hyper paranoid about protecting their designs. The tools from Synopsis and the like are also very heavily protected. Nobody even feels safe discussing tips and tricks or problems and solutions for using the tools in public forums, we're all pretty sure that's forbidden in the software license agreements.

We don't even have any cloud solutions for chip design because of this paranoia. Nobody trusts anyone else with their chip designs. Instead we all build private compute farms to run our simulation and synthesis jobs. Every new company that wants to build chips has to reimplement the infrastructure to do it from scratch. It's kind of ridiculous.

So they are working with OpenAI to create an LLM that is trained on how to "expertly" use Synopsis tools. This is:

- Synopsis admitting that their tools are very difficult to use (not a flex)

- Synopsis doubling down on keeping their tools as expensive and proprietary as possible (not letting all LLMs train to use their tools, just this GPT-Synopsis LLM)

- OpenAI announcing a new (very not open) business model where you can pay them to create an exclusive proprietary LLM that can help people use your crappy product

Just amazing :-|

UPDATE: just realized that this LLM can also suggest that you buy more licenses of Synopsis tools since that will be the limiting factor to your productivity once this LLM makes everything else better. Yay.

If we don't need to migrate repos to sha256 them why do we need to change git to use sha256?

The wording, "Where does the money go," strongly suggests a fix supply of money, which not true.

LVT is just another form of attempted centralized control of the market and it will be just as susceptible to government corruption, cronyism, lobbying, etc.

Is this the same project, or a different project that does the same thing. I took a quick glance at both and the descriptions are very similar

The idea here is you get to work, but you don't have to work.