[HN Gopher] Arm AGI CPU
___________________________________________________________________
Arm AGI CPU
Author : RealityVoid
Score : 232 points
Date : 2026-03-24 17:30 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (newsroom.arm.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (newsroom.arm.com)
| RealityVoid wrote:
| Arm apparently now sells their own CPU's.
| throwa356262 wrote:
| AGI = Agentic AI Infrastructure
|
| In case you were thinking about some other abbreviation...
| RealityVoid wrote:
| It's... really something. Not good. Something.
| lupajz wrote:
| I mean, they could at least use AI to figure out how to name
| their AI product.
| foolproofplan wrote:
| maybe they did and why they got this slop?
| _ache_ wrote:
| They did ask AI if AGI what a great name. It said that it was
| the greatest name possible. It's bold, aspirational, and ...
| polarizing?!
|
| Oh god! Mistral tell me it's highly polarizing, will make the
| buzz and it's risky but anyway people will know that ARM is
| doing CPU again now (maybe I did put too many context).
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > I work at ARM, we're launching a new CPU optimized for LLM
| usage. We're thinking of calling it "Arm Agentic AI
| Infrastructure CPU", or "Arm AGI CPU" for short. Do you think
| this is a good idea?
|
| > No. I would not use it as the product name. "AGI CPU" will
| be read as artificial general intelligence, not "agentic AI
| infrastructure," so it invites confusion and sounds hypey.
|
| To bad these executives seemingly don't have access to
| ChatGPT.
| hootz wrote:
| What a terrible, terrible name.
| ux266478 wrote:
| I think this is a poetic encapsulation of the AI industry at
| this point. A beautifully poignant vignette.
| Aerroon wrote:
| It feels more like "blockchain" to me:
| https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/21/long-island-iced-tea-
| micro-c...
| charcircuit wrote:
| AGI stands for Artificial General Intelligence.
| hagbard_c wrote:
| Are you sure it doesn't stand for _Advanced Guessing
| Instrument_? That 's what the result often seem to indicate
| after all.
| lock1 wrote:
| Pretty sure it stands for "Artificial abbreviation & hype
| GeneratIon" nowadays
| SilverElfin wrote:
| They pathetically don't mention what it stands for anywhere in
| this press release. Deceptive marketing at worst, shameless AI-
| washing at best.
| WhrRTheBaboons wrote:
| I would've went for Agentic Neural Infrastructure personally
|
| ARMANI for short /s
| esafak wrote:
| The coast is clear to come up with your own expansion for AI!
| conductr wrote:
| Missed opportunity to call it AAII and market it as twice as
| powerful as regular AI.
| flopsamjetsam wrote:
| A^2I^2 or (AI)^2
| jayd16 wrote:
| We put AI in our AI so the AI is already baked in.
| artyom wrote:
| Not bait at all
| monegator wrote:
| what lenghts are they going to, just to say we have achieved
| AGI... now who's moving the goalpost?
| bee_rider wrote:
| It's like they decided to moon all the onlookers while jumping
| the shark...
|
| I don't know if it was intentional or they were so far out over
| their skis that they got their bathing suit caught, but it's
| impressive either way.
| ww520 wrote:
| Should have called it A^3I^2 - Arm Agentic Artificial
| Intelligence Infrastructure.
| nurettin wrote:
| I was wondering who convinced ARM to manufacture hardware. Turns
| out it was Meta.
| redwood wrote:
| Fabless. Like AMD and Nvidia. So I would think about it more as
| branding and packaging than Manufacturing
| anvuong wrote:
| Huh, many companies use TSMC, in fact, probably all of them
| use TSMC, including Intel, yet there are only a few who
| dominates in performance. There are much more in designing
| chips than what you just listed.
| i_am_a_peasant wrote:
| Intel uses its own fabs for certain IP, tsmc for others
| yeah. As far as I've seen the latest greatest Panther Lake
| that stuff is made in intel's arizona fabs.
| IshKebab wrote:
| There's a big difference between just providing IP and
| actually doing the physical design, manufacturing and
| packaging. You can't just send your RTL to TSMC and magically
| get packaged chips back.
|
| I haven't ever ordered an ARM SoC but I also wouldn't be
| surprised if there were significant parts that they left up
| to integrators before - PLLs, pads, SRAM etc.
| walterbell wrote:
| Nuvia/Qualcomm lawsuit and Softbank.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Now if only they would go back to being "Acorn RISC Machines"
| and make a nice desktop home computer again...
|
| One can dream.
| wmf wrote:
| DGX Spark is pretty nice. It could be cheaper if they removed
| the NIC though.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| I have the ASUS variant. I like it well enough.
|
| I see the NIC as a form of future proofing, but we'll see.
|
| My Ryzen 9 mini-PC from 2 years ago outperforms this thing
| in raw CPU Though.
| vova_hn2 wrote:
| I found this article extremely frustrating to read. Maybe I lack
| some required prior knowledge and I am not the target audience
| for this.
|
| > built on the Arm Neoverse platform
|
| What the heck is "Arm Neoverse"? No explanation given, link leads
| to website in Chinese. Using Firefox translating tool doesn't
| help much:
|
| > Arm Neoverse delivers the best performance from the cloud to
| the edge
|
| What? This is just a pile of buzzwords, it doesn't mean anything.
|
| The article doesn't seem to contain any information on how much
| it costs or any performance benchmarks to compare it with other
| CPUs. It's all just marketing slop, basically.
| nicoburns wrote:
| > The ARM Neoverse is a group of 64-bit ARM processor cores
| licensed by Arm Holdings. The cores are intended for
| datacenter, edge computing, and high-performance computing use.
| The group consists of ARM Neoverse V-Series, ARM Neoverse
| N-Series, and ARM Neoverse E-Series.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Neoverse
| snek_case wrote:
| I feel like this is most products in the AI space lately. More
| marketing fuzz than substance. Hard to figure out what thing
| even does.
| papichulo2023 wrote:
| What does "Built for rack-scale agentic efficiency" even means?
| ray_v wrote:
| We just say words now that sound good for marketing but have no
| real meaning.
| girvo wrote:
| > now
|
| I'd argue we have always done that, and in fact it's
| basically the definition of marketing!
| varispeed wrote:
| It's a code sentence for let's go to the utility room to cross
| pollinate ideas.
| r_lee wrote:
| I was gonna say just big DCs in marketing yap but really wtf
| does that mean?
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| It's when LLM agents are inefficient that you need a whole rack
| of servers to get shit done.
| sdwvit wrote:
| Translation: "Can you give us some money pretty please?"
| inerte wrote:
| It's volume of tokens consumed x number of agents x rack space.
| Basically agentic computation density.
| thewebguyd wrote:
| Big "but mongodb is web scale" vibes
| throwa356262 wrote:
| If you read past the marketing talk, this is basically a
| massively multicore system (136) with significantly reduced
| power usage (300W).
|
| Where does Agentic come into this? ARMs explanation is that
| future Agentic workloads will be both CPU and GPU bound thus
| the need for significant CPU efficiency.
| anizan wrote:
| Lots of isolated firecracker instances for openclaw like
| agents.
| nuker wrote:
| How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_t...
| yabutlivnWoods wrote:
| How fun would it be if due to improved chips handling more model
| state RAM needs are reduced and Sama cannot make all those RAM
| purchases he booked?
|
| VC without a degree who has no grasp of hardware engineering
| failed up when all he had to do was noodle numbers in an Excel
| sheet.
|
| He is so far behind the hardware scene he thinks its sitting
| still and RAM requirements will be a nice linear path to AGI. Not
| if new chips optimized for model streaming crater RAM needs.
|
| Hilarious how last decades software geniuses are being revealed
| as incompetent finance engineers whose success was all due to
| ZIRP offering endless runway.
| gtowey wrote:
| The thing they are good at is bullshitting and selling hype.
| Which we see here doesn't mean they are actually going to be
| good at running a business. Smart leaders understand they are
| not omnipotent and omniscient so they surround themselves who
| know how to get things done. Weak, narcissist leaders think
| they're the smartest one in the room and fail.
|
| Unfortunately failing upwards is still somehow common, probably
| because the skill of parting fools from their money is still
| valuable.
| thereitgoes456 wrote:
| No, he is also good at networking. When OpenAI was mission-
| driven and Sam was more respected, he could convince the most
| talented people to work for him.
|
| Now the talent is going to other places for a variety of
| reasons, not all due to Sam (one of which is little room for
| options to grow). However it's hard to believe his tanking
| reputation is not badly hurting the company. Other than Jakub
| and Greg, I believe there are not many top tier people left,
| those in top positions are there because they are yes-men to
| Sam.
| mhjkl wrote:
| What RAM? OpenAI booked the silicon wafers, they can print
| anything they want on them. I wouldn't call them "far behind"
| on hardware when OpenAI are actively buying Cerebras chips.
| yabutlivnWoods wrote:
| Yes exactly; he is behind in that he has to buy others chips
| with little say on how they work.
|
| Apple and Google control their own designs.
|
| Sama is 100% an outsider, merely a customer. The chip
| insiders are onto his effort to pivot out of meme-stock
| hyping, into owning a chunk of their fiefdom. They laughed
| off his claims a couple years ago as insane VC gibberish
| (third hand paraphrase from social network in chip and
| hardware land).
|
| No way he can pivot and print whatever. Relative to hardware
| industry he is one of those programmers who can say just
| enough to get an interview but whiffs the code challenge.
|
| He has no idea where the bleeding edge is so he will just
| release dated designs. Chip IP is a moat.
|
| Plus a bunch of RAM companies would be left hanging; no
| orders, no wafers. Sama risks being Jimmy Hoffa'd imploding
| the asset values of other billionaires.
| rvz wrote:
| Meta are heavily invested in building their own chips with ARM to
| reduce their reliance on Nvidia as everyone is going after their
| (Nvidia) data center revenues.
|
| This is why Meta acquired a chip startup for this reason [0]
| months ago.
|
| [0] https://www.reuters.com/business/meta-buy-chip-startup-
| rivos...
| mkl wrote:
| This is like naming your kid World President Smith.
| rboyd wrote:
| This could work. Right?
| https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-12744-001
|
| My realtor's last name is House
| IshKebab wrote:
| Reporting bias.
| conductr wrote:
| > Studies 1-5 showed that people are disproportionately
| likely to live in places whose names resemble their own first
| or last names (e.g., people named Louis are
| disproportionately likely to live in St. Louis).
|
| When I lived in Austin, it seemed like a third of boys born
| were being named Austin. I presume many of them will end up
| living there as adults but not because of this particular
| bias, because they were raised there and have family's there
| seems to be a more likely driver.
| chrisweekly wrote:
| "Nominative determinism" is everywhere once you look for
| it. My vet's last name is McStay.
| krrrh wrote:
| I just listened to an interview with Carl Trueman about
| his new book which criticizes transhumanism.
| technothrasher wrote:
| > Studies 1-5 showed that people are disproportionately
| likely to live in places whose names resemble their own first
| or last names
|
| There are several cities in the US that share my last name. I
| don't live near any of them.
|
| > Study 6 extended this finding to birthday number
| preferences.
|
| D'oh!
| tombert wrote:
| My urologist, and I swear I'm not making this up, has the
| last name "Wiener".
| hn_acc1 wrote:
| Seems more likely this falls under the replication crisis
| umbrella. My wife's favorite numbers are my birthday (mm-dd),
| which is a small reason she fell in love with me. Neither of
| those numbers are related to her birthday. My favorite
| number(s) do not overlap with my birthday. Maybe my mm-dd
| values just aren't low enough, like 02-02?
| SilverElfin wrote:
| Call this an "AGI CPU" just feels like the most out of touch,
| terrible marketing possible. Maybe this is unfair but it makes me
| think ARM as a whole is incompetent just because it is so
| tasteless.
|
| > Arm has additionally partnered with Supermicro on a liquid-
| cooled 200kW design capable of housing 336 Arm AGI CPUs for over
| 45,000 cores.
|
| Also just bad timing on trying to brag about a partnership with
| Supermicro, after a founder was just indicted on charges of
| smuggling Nvidia GPUs. Just bizarre to mention them at all.
| steve1977 wrote:
| I think the interesting bit is actually this:
|
| For the first time in our more than 35-year history, Arm is
| delivering its own silicon products
| lenerdenator wrote:
| What would be the real advantage of doing that?
| brcmthrowaway wrote:
| Do they need to higher Design Verification engineers for this?
|
| Thats a huge cost compared to the average RTL jockey
| lizknope wrote:
| ARM already had tons of DV engineers. No company would
| license the RTL or any IP unless it has already been run
| through millions of simulations in DV.
| joshstrange wrote:
| Agreed, it will be _very_ interesting to see what waves this
| causes. It would be like TSMC deciding to make and sell their
| own CPUs, now ARM is directly competing with some of their
| clients.
| jballanc wrote:
| Eh, I'm not so sure it'll be that big a deal. The whole
| supply chain is so twisted and tangled all the way up and
| down. Shuffling out one piece doesn't seem like it will, on
| its own, be so major. Samsung made the chips for the iPhone,
| then made their own phone, then Apple designed their own
| chips made by TSMC, now Apple is exploring the possibility of
| having Samsung make those chips again.
|
| Also, it takes a willful ignorance of history for ARM to
| claim this is the first time they've manufactured hardware. I
| mean, maaaaybe, teeeeechnically that's true, but ARM was the
| Acorn RISC Machine, and Acorn was in the hardware
| business...at least as much as Apple was for the first
| iPhone.
| spooshspan wrote:
| Technically right is the best kind of right ... right?
|
| I don't think ARM Ltd have ever done a deal to deliver
| finished chips to a customer for production use.
|
| They've made test silicon and dev. boards.
|
| They designed arguably the first ever SoC (for Acorn) in
| the form of the ARM250 but Acorn bought the chips from VLSI
| not ARM.
|
| Not aware of an exception to this rule until now.
| HerbManic wrote:
| I can imagine a lot of ARM engineers being frustrated at seeing
| their cores being used in stupid ways for decades to finally
| flex what they can do (outside of Apple).
| djmips wrote:
| But really how different is TSMC than VLSI making the ARM1? By
| your logic I would say that ARM has already delivered it's own
| silicon product.
| aurareturn wrote:
| This is just a Neoverse CPU that Arm will manufacture themselves
| at TSMC and then sell directly to customers.
|
| It isn't an "AI" CPU. There is nothing AI about it. There is
| nothing about it that makes it more AI than Graviton, Epyc, Xeon,
| etc.
|
| This was already revealed in the Qualcomm vs Arm lawsuit a few
| years ago. Qualcomm accused Arm of planning to sell their CPUs
| directly instead of just licensing. Arm's CEO at the time denied
| it. Qualcomm ends up being right.
|
| I wrote a post here on why Arm is doing this and why now:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47032932
| benob wrote:
| This reminds me of Intel talking about faster web browsing with
| the new Pentium
| jasoneckert wrote:
| This was exactly my first thought when I saw the title. And
| after reading the contents of the blog, it's pretty clear that
| ARM is laser focused on getting a piece of their customer's
| cake by competing with them. This is likely why they are riding
| the AI hype train hard with their ill-suited name (AGI).
|
| Unfortunately for them, I think hardware vendors will see past
| the hype. They'll only buy the platform if it is very
| competitively priced (i.e., much cheaper) since fortune favours
| long-lived platforms and organizations like Apple and Qualcomm.
| rafram wrote:
| AGI (Agentic AI Infrastructure) is joining CSS (Compute
| Subsystems) in their lineup, apparently. Who's naming this stuff?
| LollipopYakuza wrote:
| So Artificial General Intelligence and Cascading Style Sheets
| are not joining forces?
| rafram wrote:
| Always have been :)
| lenerdenator wrote:
| If there's ever a singularity as a result of AGI, it will
| likely look at CSS and decide that extermination is simply
| too good for the human race.
| LikesPwsh wrote:
| The same people who abbreviate "generative" AI in a way that
| misleadingly conflates it with "general" AI.
|
| Fraud is just the default lifestyle of marketers.
| twostorytower wrote:
| And the stock is down >2% today
| jeffbee wrote:
| Many of these words are unexplained. "Memory and I/O on the same
| die". Oh? What does this mean? All of the DRAM in the
| photo/render is still on sticks. Do they mean the memory
| _controller_? Or is there an embedded DRAM component?
| ahoka wrote:
| All processors have memory on the same die.
| jeffbee wrote:
| How much, what kind, and what is your source?
|
| All mainstream server CPUs have a megabyte or two of SRAM on
| a core, of course.
| midnightdiesel wrote:
| What a product name choice! I wasn't expecting ARM to pivot to
| selling snake oil.
| josemanuel wrote:
| Interesting that Jensen Huang joined in the congratulations for
| this new product!
| torusle wrote:
| ARM riding the "everything is AI" train.
|
| So sad.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Now every product will have the AI buzzword in it's name, just
| like 25 years ago product names started with letter e, from
| electronic.
|
| So we will see AI Toilet Paper launching in the next months.
| bt1a wrote:
| Oh wow already in use by Meta, OpenAI, and more ??
| https://www.arm.com/products/cloud-datacenter/arm-agi-cpu/ec...
|
| The TDP to memory bandwidth& capacity ratio form these blades is
| in a class of its own, yes?
| bobmcnamara wrote:
| 6GB/s/core
|
| That's...not much right? Maybe it's a lot times N-cores? But I
| really hope each individual core isn't limited to that.
|
| Edit: 17 minutes to sum RAM?
| jeffbee wrote:
| It isn't obvious to me that they intended to give this as the
| maximum single-core performance, or just the proportional share
| of 844GB/s across 136 cores. Implementations of Neoverse V2 by
| Nvidia and Amazon hit 20-30GB/s in single-threaded work.
| myhf wrote:
| finally, a CPU capable of making API calls to cloud providers
| ahmedfromtunis wrote:
| Poor TSMC (and ASML)! They were already struggling with capacity
| to fulfill orders from their established customers. With ARM now
| joining the party, I don't know how they're going to cope.
|
| Edit: The new CPU will be built with the soon-to-be-former
| leading edge process of 3nm lithography.
| bigyabai wrote:
| TSMC has multiple fabs being constructed, they'll be okay. The
| biggest losers here are AMD, Intel and Apple who will be forced
| to pay AI-hype prices to mass-produce boring consumer hardware.
| tombert wrote:
| The name of this CPU is bordering on securities fraud. When
| people see the term "AGI" now, they are assuming "Artificial
| General Intelligence", not "Agentic AI Infrastructure".
|
| Of course people don't realize that, and people will buy ARM
| stock thinking they've cracked AGI. The people running Arm
| absolutely know this, so this name is what we in the industry
| call a "lie".
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| the whole AI space is rife with much worse example of what
| could be considered securities fraud tbh
| monegator wrote:
| In case you haven't noticed, this whole thing has been a grift
| since 2022. It's kind of amazing that nobody thought of making
| AGI processors before
| torginus wrote:
| Considering AGI has been degraded into a generic feelgood
| marketing word, I can't wait to get my AGI-scented deodorant.
| SecretDreams wrote:
| > I can't wait to get my AGI-scented deodorant.
|
| Old spice for me, thanks!
| bensyverson wrote:
| You can already drink AGI! Oh sorry, AG1. The resemblance
| must be a complete coincidence.
| krogenx wrote:
| Pretty sure in that case AG stands for Athletic Greens.
|
| I think the name change also came before the AI hype.
| parl_match wrote:
| > The resemblance must be a complete coincidence.
|
| I don't know why so many people are willing to descend into
| flippant, lazy conspiracy instead of a 7 second Google
| search before making a claim?
|
| AG1 was started in 2010 by a police officer from New
| Zealand and AG stands for Athletic Greens.
|
| There is a fair amount of controversy around the company's
| claims, so I suppose that is one symmetry between AG1 and
| AGI.
| bensyverson wrote:
| Not a conspiracy, and I know the history--just a joke.
| The current branding sure looks like AGI if you're not
| looking closely (or maybe I just read too much hn)
| bogzz wrote:
| Oh, is that what they're implementing in schools? No, wait,
| that was A1, probably the sauce.
| Ucalegon wrote:
| Marketing is marketing, nothing about it was ever about being
| factual when there is a total addressable market to go after
| and dollars to be made! This is inline with much of the other
| marketing that exists in the AI space as it stands now, not
| mention the use of AGI within the space as it stands currently.
| tombert wrote:
| Sure, but there are plenty of cases where a deceptive name
| has been considered enough to at least warrant an
| investigation:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Blockchain_Corp.
|
| I'm not saying anything is going to happen, ARM holdings has
| a lot more money and lawyers than Long Blockchain did, but
| I'm just saying that it's not weird to think that a deceptive
| name could be considered false advertising.
| Ucalegon wrote:
| That would not hold up considering that they consistently
| use 'agentic' in their press release and make no mention of
| 'artificial general intelligence'. Just because two things
| have the same acronym does not mean that they stand for the
| same thing. Marketing being cheeky is not a crime.
| tombert wrote:
| It's not "being cheeky". They know that the holy grail
| for AI is AGI. They know that people are going to see the
| acronym AGI and assume Artificial General Intelligence.
| They know that people aren't going to read the full
| article.
|
| This isn't just a crass joke or a pun, it's outright
| deception. I'm not a lawyer, maybe it wouldn't hold up in
| court, but you cannot convince me that they aren't doing
| this on purpose.
| Ucalegon wrote:
| of course they did it on purpose but thats not illegal.
| They are not at fault for individuals not reading what
| the acronym stands for and the intent that they place
| within the press release, which is very, very clear. They
| are not obligated or liable for others lack of due
| diligence.
| bhouston wrote:
| If you showed someone what our computers can do with the latest
| LLMs now to someone 5 years ago they would probably say it sure
| looks a lot like AGI.
|
| We have to keep defining AGI upwards or nitpick it to show that
| we haven't achieved it.
|
| I would argue that LLMs are actually smarter than the majority
| of humans right now. LLMs do not have quite the agency that
| humans have, but their intelligence is pretty decent.
|
| We don't have clear ASI yet, but we definitely are in a AGI-
| era.
|
| I think we are missing an ego/motiviations in the AGI and them
| having self-sufficiency independent of us, but that is just a
| bit of engineering that would actually make them more
| dangerous, it isn't really a significant scientific hurdle.
| tombert wrote:
| Ok, but it's not AGI. People five years ago would have been
| wrong. People who don't have all the information are often
| wrong about things.
|
| ETA:
|
| You updated your comment, which is fine but I wanted to reply
| to your points.
|
| > I would argue that LLMs are actually smarter than the
| majority of humans right now. LLMs do not have quite the
| agency that humans have, but their intelligence is pretty
| decent.
|
| I would actually argue that they are decidedly not smarter
| than even dumb humans right now. They're useful but they are
| glorified text predictors. Yes, they have more individual
| facts memorized than the average person but that's not the
| same thing; Wikipedia, even before LLMs also had many more
| facts than the average person but you wouldn't say that
| Wikipedia is "smarter" than a human because that doesn't make
| sense.
|
| Intelligence isn't just about memorizing facts, it's about
| reasoning. The recent Esolang benchmarks indicate that these
| LLMs are actually pretty bad at that.
|
| > We don't have clear ASI yet, but we definitely are in a
| AGI-era.
|
| Nah, not really.
| bhouston wrote:
| > They're useful but they are glorified text predictors.
|
| There is a long history of people arguing that intelligence
| is actually the ability to predict accurately.
|
| https://www.explainablestartup.com/2017/06/why-prediction-
| is...
|
| > Intelligence isn't just about memorizing facts, it's
| about reasoning.
|
| Initially, LLMs were basically intuitive predictors, but
| with chain of thought and more recently agentic
| experimentation, we do have reasoning in our LLMs that is
| quite human like.
|
| That said, there is definitely a biased towards training
| set material, but that is also the case with the large
| majority of humans.
|
| For the Esoland benchmarks, I would be curious how much
| adding a SKILLS.md file for each language would boost
| performance?
|
| I am pretty confidence that we are in the AGI era. It is
| unsettling and I think it gives people cognitive dissonance
| so we want to deny it and nitpick it, etc.
| tombert wrote:
| > There is a long history of people arguing that
| intelligence is actually the ability to predict
| accurately.
|
| There sure is, and in psychological circles that it
| appears that there's an argument that that is not the
| case.
|
| https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/linguistics/2024-fedoren
| ko....
|
| > Initially, LLMs were basically intuitive predictors,
| but with chain of thought and more recently agentic
| experimentation, we do have reasoning in our LLMs that is
| quite human like.
|
| If you handwave the details away, then sure it's very
| human like, though the reasoning models just kind of feed
| the dialog back to itself to get something more accurate.
| I use Claude code like everyone else, and it will get
| stuck on the strangest details that humans actively
| wouldn't.
|
| > For the Esoland benchmarks, I would be curious how much
| adding a SKILLS.md file for each language would boost
| performance?
|
| Tough to say since I haven't done it, though I suspect it
| wouldn't help much, since there's still basically no
| training data for advanced programs in these languages.
|
| > I am pretty confidence that we are in the AGI era. It
| is unsettling and I think it gives people cognitive
| dissonance so we want to deny it and nitpick it, etc.
|
| Even if you're right about this being the AGI era, that
| doesn't mean that current models are AGI, at least not
| yet. It feels like you're actively trying to handwave
| away details.
| bhouston wrote:
| > though the reasoning models just kind of feed the
| dialog back to itself to get something more accurate.
|
| Much of our reasoning is based on stimulating our sensory
| organs, either via imagination (self-stimulation of our
| visual system) or via subvocalization (self-stimulation
| of our auditory system), etc.
|
| > it will get stuck on the strangest details that humans
| actively wouldn't.
|
| It isn't a human. It is AGI, not HGI.
|
| > It feels like you're actively trying to handwave away
| details.
|
| Maybe. I don't think so though.
| Aloisius wrote:
| _> There is a long history of people arguing that
| intelligence is actually the ability to predict
| accurately._
|
| That page describes a few recent CS people in AI arguing
| intelligence is being able to predict accurately which is
| like carpenters declaring all problems can be solved with
| a hammer.
|
| AI "reasoning" is human-like in the sense that it is
| similar to how humans _communicate_ reasoning, but that
| 's not how humans mentally reason.
| saganus wrote:
| What does AGI look like in your opinion?
|
| Personally, I've used LLMs to debug hard-to-track code
| issues and AWS issues among other things.
|
| Regardless of whether that was done via next-token
| prediction or not, it definitely looked like AGI, or at
| least very close to it.
|
| Is it infallible? Not by a long shot. I always have to
| double-check everything, but at least it gave me solid
| starting points to figure out said issues.
|
| It would've taken me probably weeks to find out without
| LLMd instead of the 1 or 2 hours it did.
|
| In that context, I have a hard time thinking how would a
| "real" AGI system look like, that it's not the current one.
|
| Not saying current LLMs are unequivocally AGI, but they are
| darn close for sure IMO.
| tombert wrote:
| > What does AGI look like in your opinion?
|
| Being able to actually reason about things without
| exabytes of training data would be one thing. Hell, even
| _with_ exabytes of training data, doing actual reasoning
| for novel things that aren 't just regurgitating things
| from Github would be cool.
|
| Being able to learn new things would be another. LLMs
| don't learn; they're a pretrained model (it's in the name
| of GPT), that send in inputs and get an output. RAGs are
| cool but they're not really "learning", they're just
| eating a bit more context in order to kind of give a
| facsimile of learning.
|
| Going to the extreme of what you're saying, then `grep`
| would be "darn close to AGI". If I couldn't grep through
| logs, it might have taken me years to go through and find
| my errors or understand a problem.
|
| I think that they're ultimately very neat, but ultimately
| pretty straightforward input-output functions.
| adamsb6 wrote:
| Why should implementation matter at all? You should be
| able to classify a black box as AGI or not.
|
| Well, I guess you lose artificial if there's a human
| brain hidden in the box.
| root_axis wrote:
| If we had AGI we wouldn't need to keep spending more and
| more money to train these models, they could just solve
| arbitrary problems through logic and deduction like any
| human. Instead, the only way to make them good at
| something is to encode millions of examples into text or
| find some other technique to tune them automatically
| (e.g. verifiable reward modeling of with computer
| systems).
|
| Why is it that LLMs could ace nearly every written test
| known to man, but need specialized training in order to
| do things like reliably type commands into a terminal or
| competently navigate a computer? A truly intelligent
| system should be able to 0-shot those types of tasks, or
| in the absolute worst case 1-shot them.
| IanCal wrote:
| > The recent Esolang benchmarks indicate that these LLMs
| are actually pretty bad at that.
|
| I'm really not sure how well a typical human would do
| writing brainfuck. It'd take me a long time to write some
| pretty basic things in a bunch of those languages and I'm a
| SE.
| flowardnut wrote:
| "look, it completely lied about params that don't exist in a
| CLI!"
| bhouston wrote:
| AGI doesn't mean perfect. It means human like and the
| latest models are pretty human like in terms of their
| fallibility and capabilities.
| hermanzegerman wrote:
| No they aren't
|
| ChatGPT Health failed hilariously bad at just spotting
| emergencies.
|
| A few weeks ago most of them failed hilariously bad at the
| question if you should drive or walk to the service station
| if you want to wash your car
| bhouston wrote:
| I would accuse you of nitpicking. My experience is that
| LLMs are generally as smart as the average human +90% of
| the time. A lack of perfect to me doesn't mean it isn't
| AGI.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> My experience is that LLMs are generally as smart as
| the average human +90% of the time. A lack of perfect to
| me doesn't mean it isn't AGI.
|
| In my experience, they contain more information than any
| human but they are actually quite stupid. Reasoning is
| not something they do well at all. But even if I skip
| that, they can not learn. Inference is separate from
| training, so they can not learn new things other than
| trying to work with words in a context window, and even
| then they will only be able to mimic rather than
| extrapolate anything new.
|
| It's not the lack of perfect, it's the lack of reasoning
| and learning.
| bhouston wrote:
| I 100% agree that learning is missing. We make up for it
| in SKILLS.md and README.md files and RAGs of various
| types. And we train the LLMs to deal with these
| structures.
|
| I've seen a lot of reasoning in the latest models while
| engaging in agentic coding. It is often decent at
| debugging and experimentational, but around 30% it goes
| does wrong paths and just adds unnecessary complexity via
| misdiagnoses.
| xp84 wrote:
| Idk about the health story, but in my use, ChatGPT has
| dramatically improved my understanding of my health issues
| and given sound and careful advice.
|
| The second question sounds like a useless and artificial
| metric to judge on. The average person might miss such a
| "gotcha" logical quiz too, for the same reason - because
| they expect to be asked "is it walking distance."
|
| No one has ever relied on anyone else's judgment, nor an
| AI, to answer "should I bring my car to the carwash." Same
| for the ol' "how many rocks shall I eat?" that people got
| the AI Overview tricked with.
|
| I'm not saying anything categorically "is AGI" but by
| relying on jokes like this you're lying to yourself about
| what's relevant.
| hermanzegerman wrote:
| It gave dangerous shitty advice to patients in critical
| conditions
|
| https://www.bmj.com/content/392/bmj.s438
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > LLMs are actually smarter than the majority of humans right
| now
|
| I consider myself a bit of a misanthrope but this makes me an
| optimist by comparison.
|
| Even stupid people are waaaaaay smarter than any LLM.
|
| The problem is the continued habit humans have of
| anthropomorphizing computers that spit out pretty words. It's
| like Eliza only prettier. More useful for sure. Still just a
| computer.
| bhouston wrote:
| > Still just a computer.
|
| I don't believe in a separation of mind and spirit. So I do
| think fundamentally, outside of a reliance on quantum
| effects in cognition (some of theorized but it isn't
| proven), its processes can be replicated in a fashion in
| computers. So I think that intelligence likely can be "just
| a computer" in theory and I think we are in the era where
| this is now true.
| tombert wrote:
| I don't believe in "spirits" from the get go. I think
| it's certainly theoretically possible that we could mimic
| human thought with a computer (quantum or otherwise) but
| I do not think that the LLMs we have now are doing that.
| I'd say that what we have right now is "just a computer".
|
| This doesn't mean they aren't useful, I like Claude a
| lot, but I don't buy that it's AGI.
| svachalek wrote:
| I really feel like we have not encountered the same stupid
| people. Most stupid people I know respond to every question
| with some form of will-not-attempt. What's 74 times 2? Use
| a calculator! Should I drive or walk to the car wash? Not
| my problem! How many R's in strawberry? Who cares! They'll
| lose to the LLM 100%.
| dubcanada wrote:
| A human can think logically with reason, not to say they are
| smart or smarter. But LLMs cannot. You can convince a LLM
| anything is correct and it will believe you. You can't
| convince a human anything is correct.
|
| I can't argue that LLMs do not know an absolute insane amount
| of information about everything. But you can't just say LLMs
| are smarter then most humans. We've already decided that
| smartness is not about how much data you know, but thinking
| about that data with logical reasoning. Including the fact it
| may or may not be true.
|
| I can run a LLM through absolutely incorrect data, and tell
| it that data is 100% true. Then ask it questions about that
| data and get those incorrect results as answers. That's not
| easy to do with humans.
| hex4def6 wrote:
| That just implies LLMs are suggestible. The same is true of
| children. As we get older and build a more complete world
| model in our heads, it's harder to get us to believe things
| which go against that model.
|
| Tell a 5-yr old about Santa, and they will believe it
| sincerely. Do the same with a 30-year old immigrant who has
| never heard of Santa, and I suspect you'll have a harder
| time.
|
| That's not because the 5-year old is dumber, but just
| because their life-experience ("training data") is much
| more limited.
|
| Even so, trying to convince a modern LLM of something
| ridiculous is getting harder. I invite you to try telling
| ChatGPT or Gemini that the president died a week ago and
| was replaced by a body-double facsimile until January 2027,
| so that Vance can have a full term. I suspect you'll have
| significant difficulty.
| soperj wrote:
| > Do the same with a 30-year old immigrant who has never
| heard of Santa, and I suspect you'll have a harder time.
|
| There's a plethora of people who convert to religion at
| an older age, and that seems far more far fetched than
| Santa.
| hex4def6 wrote:
| Sure.
|
| But I bet you'd have a significantly easier time
| converting a child rather than a 30/40/50-yr old to a
| religion.
|
| My point is that LLMs are suggestible, perhaps more so
| than the average adult, but less so than I child I
| suspect. I don't think suggestibility really solves the
| problem of whether something has AGI or not. To me, on
| the contrary, it seems like to be intelligent and
| adaptable you need to be able to modify your world model.
| How easily you are fooled is a function of how mature /
| data-rich your existing world model is.
| root_axis wrote:
| > _If you showed someone what our computers can do with the
| latest LLMs now to someone 5 years ago they would probably
| say it sure looks a lot like AGI._
|
| Would they? Perhaps if you only showed them glossy demos that
| obscure all the ways in which LLMs fail catastrophically and
| are very obviously nowhere even close to AGI.
|
| Certainly, they wouldn't expect that an AI able to score 150
| on an IQ test is unable to play a casual game of chess
| because it isn't coherent enough to play without making
| illegal moves.
| bykhun wrote:
| > Certainly, they wouldn't expect that an AI able to score
| 150 on an IQ test is unable to play a casual game of chess
| because it isn't coherent enough to play without making
| illegal moves.
|
| To be fair, I am pretty sure Claude Code will download and
| run stockfish, if you task it to play chess with you. It's
| not like a human who read 100 books about chess, but never
| played, would be able to play well with their eyes closed,
| and someone whispering board position into their ear
| root_axis wrote:
| There are a lot of problems with this analogy, but even
| if you were to take a photo of the board after every move
| and send it to the model, it would still be unable to
| play competently.
| nananana9 wrote:
| My definition of AGI hasn't changed - it's something that can
| perform, or learn to perform, any intellectual task that a
| human can.
|
| 5 years ago we thought that language is the be-all and end-
| all of intelligence and treated it as the most impressive
| thing humans do. We were wrong. We now have these models that
| are very good at language, but still very bad at tasks that
| we wrongly considered prerequisites for language.
| Majromax wrote:
| > My definition of AGI hasn't changed - it's something that
| can perform, or learn to perform, any intellectual task
| that a human can.
|
| Wait, could you make your qualifiers specific here? Is your
| definition of AGI that it be able to perform/learn any
| intellectual task that is achievable by _every_ human, or
| by _any_ human?
|
| Those are almost incomparably different standards. For the
| first, a nascent AGI would only need to perform a bit
| better than a "profound intellectual disability" level. For
| the second, AGI would need to be a real "Renaissance AGI,"
| capable of advancing the frontiers of thought in every
| discipline, but at the same time every _human_ would likely
| fail that bar.
| svachalek wrote:
| Your true average human is someone like your barista at
| Starbuck's. Try giving them a good math problem, or logic
| puzzle, or leetcode problem if you need some reminding of
| the standard reasoning capabilities of our species. LLMs
| cannot beat the best humans at practically anything, but
| average humans? Average humans are a much softer target
| than this thread seems to think.
| singpolyma3 wrote:
| Completely disagree. Inability to handle specific math or
| CS is a matter of training and experience not reasoning
| and intelligence. The barista is quite capable at
| reasoning and learning feats the LLMs aren't close to
| tombert wrote:
| Yeah, there appears to be this idea that "being smart" is
| the same thing as "knowing facts", which I don't think is
| realistic.
|
| I know plenty of people who are considerably smarter than
| me, but don't know nearly as much as I do about computer
| science or obscure 90's video game trivia. Just because I
| know more facts than they do (at least in this very
| limited scope) doesn't mean that they're less capable of
| learning than I am.
|
| As you said, a barista is very likely able to reason
| about and learn new things, which is not something an LLM
| can really do.
| jen20 wrote:
| > I would argue that LLMs are actually smarter than the
| majority of humans right now
|
| This (surprisingly common) view belies a wild
| misunderstanding of how LLMs work.
| singpolyma3 wrote:
| It doesn't look anything like AGI and no one who knows what
| that means would be confused in any era.
|
| Is it useful? Yes. Is it as smart as a person? Not even
| remotely. It can't even remember things it already was told 5
| minutes ago. Sometimes even if they are still in the context
| window un compacted!
| IanCal wrote:
| It doesn't need to be human level, and if I walk into a
| room and forget why I went in am I no longer a general
| intelligence?
| singpolyma3 wrote:
| If it doesn't need to be human level then what are we
| even talking about? AGI means human level. Everything
| else is AI
| IanCal wrote:
| I did AI back before it was cool and I think we have agi. Imo
| the whole distinction was from extremely narrow AI to general
| intelligence. A classifier for engine failure can only do
| that - a route planner can only do that...
|
| Now we have things I can ask a pretty arbitrary question and
| they can answer it. Translate, understand nuance (the
| multitude of ways of parsing sentences, getting sarcasm was
| an unsolved problem), write code, go and read and find
| answers elsewhere, use tools... these aren't one trick
| ponies.
|
| There are finer points to this where the level of autonomy or
| learning over time may be important parts to you but to me it
| was the generality that was the important part. And I think
| we're clearly there.
|
| Agi doesn't have to be human level, and it doesn't have to be
| equal to experts in every field all at once.
| chromacity wrote:
| > If you showed someone what our computers can do with the
| latest LLMs now to someone 5 years ago they would probably
| say it sure looks a lot like AGI.
|
| But this is a CPU! It's not a GPU / TPU. Even if you think
| we've achieved AGI, this is not where the matrix
| multiplication magic happens. It's pure marketing hype.
| jltsiren wrote:
| The problem with definitions is that they are all wrong when
| you try to apply them outside mathematical models.
| Descriptive terms are more useful than normative ones when
| you are dealing with the real world. Their meaning naturally
| evolves when people understand the topic better.
|
| General intelligence, as a description, covers many aspects
| of intelligence. I would say that the current AIs are almost
| but not quite generally intelligent. They still have severe
| deficiencies in learning and long-term memory. As a
| consequence, they tend to get worse rather than better with
| experience. To work around those deficiencies, people
| routinely discard the context and start over with a fresh
| instance.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| Those in the industry don't call it a lie, they call it
| "marketing".
|
| It's those out of the industry who call them lies.
| tombert wrote:
| Touche. I guess I should have said "I call it a lie".
| kergonath wrote:
| AGI is a poorly-defined concept anyway. It's just vibes,
| nothing descriptive.
| 0x3f wrote:
| > Of course people don't realize that, and people will buy ARM
| stock thinking they've cracked AGI.
|
| Doesn't seem like a very credible assertion. Picking stocks in
| this way would remove you from the market pretty quickly.
| PessimalDecimal wrote:
| Didn't random companies add block chain to their names only
| just a few years ago and get 30+% jumps in stock price
| immediately?
| 0x3f wrote:
| > Just because the stock goes up doesn't mean anyone was
| tricked. People invest in sentiment, in momentum, in all
| kinds of second order effects.
| tombert wrote:
| I didn't say it would be a wise decision to pick stocks that
| way, but this has already happened:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Blockchain_Corp.
|
| Does an iced tea company changing their name to Long
| Blockchain make any sense? No, not really, it's pretty stupid
| actually, but it managed to bump the stock by apparently
| 380%.
|
| The stock market can be pretty dumb sometimes. Let's not
| forget the weird GME bubble.
| 0x3f wrote:
| You're making claims not found in evidence. Just because
| the stock goes up doesn't mean anyone was tricked. People
| invest in sentiment, in momentum, in all kinds of second
| order effects.
|
| GME was hardly a trick either. If you actually read the
| subreddits at the time they were all perfectly aware of the
| nature of the thing. They literally go around calling it
| degenerate behavior (i.e. risky, frothy, baseless).
|
| Why is the assumption that you are smarter than everyone
| else? That you can interpret the world but everyone else
| needs protecting?
| tombert wrote:
| Where did I say I was smarter than everyone else? I
| certainly don't think that and I didn't mean to imply it
| if I did.
|
| I _do_ think I know more than the average person about
| computers. Probably most people on this forum can say
| that. People who know about computers are more likely to
| be able to smell bullshit with a name like AGI. It's not
| that I am smarter, I wouldn't be able to call bullshit
| with anything involving chemistry or physics.
|
| I think, like Long Blockchain, ARM is abusing that
| world's collective computer illiteracy and trying to
| harvest investor money in the process. Clearly this has
| worked once, as was the case of Long Blockchain.
|
| > People invest in sentiment, in momentum, in all kinds
| of second order effects.
|
| Yep! And this is why it is wrong for corporations to put
| out incorrect or misleading statements, as it creates a
| sentiment that is not realistic. This can then propagate
| in the form of the stock price not being realistic.
| 0x3f wrote:
| I just don't believe even a person with a poor
| understanding of the market or the underlying technology
| tosses out bets so casually based only on a name, in the
| sense that they believe 'oh wow this is actually AGI, I
| should buy it'.
|
| It's different for them to toss out a bet on the basis of
| 'other people will think this is AGI, I should buy it in
| anticipation of that' or even 'other people will think
| other people will think this is AGI, I should buy in
| anticipation of that'.
|
| People playing the Keynesian beauty contest are not, to
| me, naive participants in the market getting scammed by a
| company adding 'AGI' to a product.
|
| The idea that the first-order person exists in any great
| number is just so insulting to the average person's
| intelligence that it's hard not to read it in a
| paternalistic tone.
| tombert wrote:
| > I just don't believe even a person with a poor
| understanding of the market or the underlying technology
| tosses out bets so casually based only on a name, in the
| sense that they believe 'oh wow this is actually AGI, I
| should buy it'.
|
| The CUBA ticker shot up in value after Obama lifted
| sanctions on Cuba, despite the fact that company doesn't
| invest in any Cuba companies. People will invest in
| things just based on a name. https://acrinv.com/silly-
| true-market-anomaly/
|
| The average person generally doesn't know a lot about
| anything other than the specific niche that they do for a
| living. This isn't a dig at their intelligence, or at
| least I'm not excluding myself. I know a fair bit about
| computer science, but only a very lay person's
| understanding of basically everything else.
|
| For example, I know nothing about electric or hydrogen
| powered cars, so I wasn't able to call bullshit with the
| Nikola scam a few years ago. I fortunately didn't buy any
| Nikola stock, but that wasn't because of any insight on
| my end, just didn't buy it. I am very glad that people
| who _do_ know about this kind of stuff call it out when
| companies lie to potential investors.
| 0x3f wrote:
| > People will invest in things just based on a name
|
| Right but it doesn't follow from this that those people
| were tricked in some way. They can be second- or third-
| order bettors. Even the most sophisticated quant shop in
| the world, the literal sharpest players in the market,
| can bet 'just based on a name' if it fits into some
| theory about market dynamics or whatever.
|
| > The average person generally doesn't know a lot about
| anything other than the specific niche that they do for a
| living.
|
| But so what, it doesn't follow that because they don't
| know about X they are willing to trivially gamble
| significant amounts of money on X without even the most
| basic of research. "I don't know much about this so won't
| place a bet I'm not willing to lose" is not something
| that requires any great intelligence.
| wiml wrote:
| Yes, that's how fraud works a lot of the time. It removes you
| from the market but not until after it's removed your money.
| And there's an endless supply of new people ready to make the
| same mistake after you've learned your lesson.
| imglorp wrote:
| The marketers did this for 5G also, calling their product 5G
| before it was actually deployed, only because theirs came after
| 4G but wanted to ride the upcoming 5G buzz.
|
| It seems marketing /depends/ on conflating terms and misleading
| consumers. Shakespeare might have gotten it wrong with his quip
| about lawyers.
|
| https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/att-to-drop-misleading-...
| mort96 wrote:
| There was soooo much intentional disinformation around 5G.
| Everyone who wanted to sell anything intentionally confused
| the >1Gbps millimeter wave line-of-sight kind of 5G with the
| "4G but with some changes to handle more devices connected to
| one tower" kind of 5G. I wonder how many bought a "5G phone"
| expecting millimeter wave but only got the slightly improved
| 4G.
| rootbear wrote:
| This sort of thing really bugs me! Marketing departments
| appropriate an existing term and use it in some new, often
| deceptive way. This goes all the way back to when IBM released
| "The IBM Personal Computer", at a time when "personal computer"
| was a category name. Then Microsoft released Windows, when
| "windows" was a generic term for windowing systems. Intel did
| it with their "core" architecture. The list goes on.
|
| (Disclosure: I am a casual investor in ARM.)
| juleiie wrote:
| If rich people are this stupid then they deserve to be parted
| with their cash.
|
| If you invest money so mindlessly that you don't even check
| what you buy, then no legislation in the world will manage to
| protect you from your own mind
| groby_b wrote:
| Honestly: The people who buy stock because a product says "AGI"
| in the name _deserve_ to lose their shirt.
|
| And no, it's not "a lie", because only an utter idiot would
| consider a product name an actual fact. It's a name. The Hopper
| GPUs also didn't ship with a lifesize cutout of Grace Hopper.
| tombert wrote:
| No, it's actually a lie, and it's different than the Hopper
| GPU you mentioned.
|
| People have been seeing every big AI company talk about how
| AGI is the holy grail of AI, and how they're all trying to
| reach it. Arm naming a chip AGI is clearly meant to make
| casual observers think they cracked AGI.
|
| The Hopper GPU isn't the same, because Nvidia isn't actively
| trying to make people think that it includes a lifesize
| cutout of Grace Hopper. Not a dig on her, but most people
| don't know who Grace Hopper is, people haven't been hearing
| on the news for the last several years about how having a
| Grace Hopper is going to make every job irrelevant.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| It's just going the way of "Smartphone" and "Smart Car" they'll
| market it as such to get people riled up about it. Consumers
| will eat it up. I'm sure Scam Altman is ready to show us "AGI"
| next too. If ARM is making AGI's meaning shift to a CPU
| descriptor, anyone can call their tech "AGI" by just using
| their chips.
| vsgherzi wrote:
| is this a cpu that's meant for AI training or is it more for
| serving inference? I don't quite get why I would want to buy an
| arm CPU over a nvidia GPU for ai applications.
| oxag3n wrote:
| Why not ASI? They aim too low.
| einpoklum wrote:
| If I try to cut through the hype, it seems the main features of
| this processor, or rather processor + memory controller + system
| architecture, is < 100 ns for accessing anything in system memory
| and 6 GB/sec for each of a large-ish number of cores, so a
| (much?) higher overall bandwidth than what we would see in a
| comparable Intel x86_64 machine.
|
| Am I right or am I misunderstanding?
| moritzwarhier wrote:
| I miss the all-capitals ARM spelling.
|
| Seeing "Arm AGI" spelled out on a page with an "arm" logo looks
| slightly cheesy.
|
| But maybe it's actually a good fit for the societal revolution
| driven by AGI, comparable to the one driven by the DOT.com
| RevoLut.Ion. (dot com).
|
| Anyways, it sounds like an A.R.M. branded version of the
| AppleSilicon revolution?
|
| But maybe that's just my shallow categorization.
| als0 wrote:
| I also miss the all-capitals ARM spelling. I think they've
| never been the same since they've changed that, since around
| the same time their business strategy went from sensible to
| nonsense.
| wewewedxfgdf wrote:
| Seems like hubris to use this name.
| JSR_FDED wrote:
| This can't come fast enough, I'll finally be able to use CSS.
| HeyMeco wrote:
| The non marketing fluff version of the press release can be found
| here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47506641
| zackmorris wrote:
| It only took a quarter century, but I'm glad that somebody is
| finally adding a little multicore competition since Moore's law
| began failing in the mid-2000s.
|
| I looked around a bit, and the going rate appears to be about
| $10,000 per 64 cores, or around $150 per core. Here is an Intel
| Xeon Platinum 8592+ 64 Core Processor with 61 billion
| transistors:
|
| https://www.itcreations.com/product/144410
|
| So that's about 500 million transistors per dollar, or 1 billion
| transistors for $2.
|
| It looks like Arm's 136 core Neoverse V3 has between 150 and 200
| billion transistors, so it should cost around $400. Each blade
| has 2 of those chips, so should be around $800-1000 for compute.
| It doesn't say how much memory the blades come with, but that's a
| secondary concern.
|
| Note that this is way too many cores for 1 bus, since by Amdahl's
| law, more than about 4-8 cores per bus typically results in the
| remaining cores getting wasted. Real-world performance will be
| bandwidth-limited, so I would expect a blade to perform about the
| same as a 16-64 core computer. But that depends on mesh topology,
| so maybe I'm wrong (AI thinks I might be): Intel
| Xeon Scalable: Switched from a Ring to a Mesh Architecture
| starting with Skylake-SP to handle higher core counts.
| Arm Neoverse V3 / AGI: Uses the Arm CMN-700 (Coherent Mesh
| Network), which is a high-bandwidth 2D mesh designed specifically
| to link over 100 cores and multiple memory controllers.
|
| I find all of this to be somewhat exhausting. We're long overdue
| for modular transputers. I'm envisioning small boards with 4-16
| cores between 1-4 GHz and 1-16 GB of memory approaching $100 or
| less with economies of scale. They would be stackable
| horizontally and vertically, to easily create clusters with as
| many cores as one desires. The cluster could appear to the user
| as an array of separate computers, a single multicore computer
| running in a unified address space, or various custom
| configurations. Then libraries could provide APIs to run existing
| 3D, AI, tensor and similar SIMD code, since it's trivial to run
| SIMD on MIMD but very challenging to run MIMD on SIMD. This is
| similar to how we often see Lisp runtimes written in C/C++, but
| never C/C++ runtimes written in Lisp.
|
| It would have been unthinkable to design such a thing even a year
| ago, but with the arrival of AI, that seems straightforward, even
| pedestrian. If this design ever manifests, I do wonder how hard
| it would be to get into a fab. It's a chicken and egg problem,
| because people can't imagine a world that isn't compute-bound,
| just like they couldn't imagine a world after the arrival of AI.
|
| Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47506641 has Arm AGI
| specs. Looks like it has DDR5-8800 (12x DDR5 channels) so that's
| just under 12 cores per bus, which actually aligns well with
| Amdahl's law. Maybe Arm is building the transputer I always
| wanted. I just wish prices were an order of magnitude lower so
| that we could actually play around with this stuff.
| varenc wrote:
| "AGI" continues to lose all meaning.
| rsynnott wrote:
| I feel like this is one of the things that people will look back
| on as the peaking of the bubble.
|
| Like, c'mon, this is ridiculous.
| bhewes wrote:
| Yeah dumb name, but we will still use these we have been using
| Ampere in our office.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| AGI will just become the new "Smart Phone" or "Smart Car" losing
| all meaning.
| creantum wrote:
| Agl? @gi? Heck if we can't compete we'll confuse!
| creantum wrote:
| Well that explains it, the guy in charge is a wad.
| rapatel0 wrote:
| RISC-V will start making more waves now
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-24 23:00 UTC)