The source article in Korean actually seems to tell a somewhat different story, that it's been a massive productivity boost in their early experiments. You could focus on the points of friction, but that isn't the main takeaway I think.
I understand that they used Claude to create some sort of verification code and test environments from circuit-design information, verification programs, and protocol specifications. But isn't precisely this quite risky due to the statitical nature of LLMs? I would have thought that they rather operate with very rigid test suites based on such software like F*, Coq, and whatnot.
Can someone with understanding of the process chime in here?
Here is the text snippet from the original korean article. Indeed the information was misrepresented:
"Customer-specific SoC verification work, which Usually takes Over a month, was completed in just two days. A second-year employee completed a USB model development that previously takes a month in a single day".
> Claude built a virtual test environment with placeholder blocks standing in for the missing RTL and started catching errors before the real design was even finished. Reportedly, this task would normally take over a month, but Claude managed to finish it in two days.
Seems a lot went quite right, traditional 30 day task done in 2 days
The source article in Korean actually seems to tell a somewhat different story, that it's been a massive productivity boost in their early experiments. You could focus on the points of friction, but that isn't the main takeaway I think.
I understand that they used Claude to create some sort of verification code and test environments from circuit-design information, verification programs, and protocol specifications. But isn't precisely this quite risky due to the statitical nature of LLMs? I would have thought that they rather operate with very rigid test suites based on such software like F*, Coq, and whatnot.
Can someone with understanding of the process chime in here?
Here is the text snippet from the original korean article. Indeed the information was misrepresented:
"Customer-specific SoC verification work, which Usually takes Over a month, was completed in just two days. A second-year employee completed a USB model development that previously takes a month in a single day".
Feels like a disingenuous heading for the article.
All of the problems they listed seem quite solvable. And it seems like it's saving a lot of time.
But saying AI is doing good doesn't generate the same number of clicks!
What could possibly go wrong?
> Claude built a virtual test environment with placeholder blocks standing in for the missing RTL and started catching errors before the real design was even finished. Reportedly, this task would normally take over a month, but Claude managed to finish it in two days.
Seems a lot went quite right, traditional 30 day task done in 2 days
AI makes a great shotgun; occasional sniper.
But it is not a divine shotgun sniper rifle hybrid.
[flagged]