Live data from Hacker News

The sigmoids won't save you

astralcodexten.com

31–40 of 297 posts

Re: The sigmoids won't save you

#31
I think an interesting thing about recent AI developments is that its all happening right as we hit the diminishing returns side of another "exponential that's actually a sigmoid" which is Moore's law.

The naive expectation is that AI will slow down b/c Moore's law is coming to an end, but if you really think about the models and how they are currently implemented in silicon, they are still inefficient as hell.

At some point someone will build a tensor processing chip that replaces all the digital matmuls with analogue logamp matmuls, or some breakthrough in memristors will start breaking down the barrier between memory and compute.

With the right level of research funding in hardware, the ceiling for AI can be very high.

Re: The sigmoids won't save you

#32
post #30
post #6

I don't know what the Y-axis is supposed to be on that Wharton AI capabilities graph, but I am not really convinced that Opus 4.6 has more than double the intelligence/capability/whatever of GPT 5.1 Max.

According to this article: whenever someone games a benchmark to make an upward chart on some y-axis, it's YOUR responsibility to prove how and why that trend can't continue indefinitely. emoji face with eyes rolling upward

I'm pretty sure that gaming benchmarks can continue indefinitely.

Re: The sigmoids won't save you

#33

I think an interesting thing about recent AI developments is that its all happening right as we hit the diminishing returns side of another "exponential that's actually a sigmoid" which is Moore's law. The naive expectation is that AI will slow down b/c Moore's law is coming to an end, but if you really think about the models and how they are currently implemented in silicon, they are still inefficient as hell. At so…

they already did put a model into the silicon and it's crazy fast. https://chatjimmy.ai/

I'm pretty sure there's a 3 year design goal starting this year that'll do that to any of the qwen, deepseek, etc models. There's a lot you could do with sped up models of these quality.

It might even be bad enough that the real bubble is how much we don't need giant data centers when 80-90% of use cases could just be a silicon chip with a model rather than as you say, bloated SOTA

Re: The sigmoids won't save you

#34
post #6

I don't know what the Y-axis is supposed to be on that Wharton AI capabilities graph, but I am not really convinced that Opus 4.6 has more than double the intelligence/capability/whatever of GPT 5.1 Max.

Check out Re-Bench and HCAST.

The tasks are obviously all of the form "Go do this, and if you get the following output you passed". Setting up a web server apparently takes 15 minutes for a human, which is news to me since I'm able to search for https://gist.github.com/willurd/5720255, find the python one-liner, and copy it within about ten seconds.

Anyway, this is cool but it does not mean Claude can perform any human tasks that take less than 8 hours and are within its physical capabilities.

Re: The sigmoids won't save you

#35
post #27

If the scary AI is so inevitable, why do you feel such an overwhelming need to convince people about that? Surely you can just wait a bit, and they'll see for themselves.

1. It's not inevitable. 2. Those that see AI as an existential risk don't generally think it's a guarantee, but if it's say a 5% chance then that's worth addressing/mitigating. 3. That's not what this article was even about.

Re: The sigmoids won't save you

#36
> then what is their model?

My mental model has been 3D computer graphics: doubling the polygon count had huge returns early on but delivered diminishing returns over time.

Ultimately, you can't make something look more realistic than real.

I don't know what the future holds, but the answer to the question "can LLMs be more realistic than real" will determine much about whether or not you think the curve will level off soon.

Re: The sigmoids won't save you

#37
Lindy’s Law is an absolute gem, that I'm keeping.

If we don't understand the fundamental limits to any particular kind of trend, our default assumption should be that it will continue for about as long as it has gone on already.

We can, in fact, easily put a confidence interval on this. With 90% odds we're not in the first 5% of the trend, or the last 5% of the trend. Therefore it will probably go on between 1/19th longer, and 19 times longer. With a median of as long as it has gone on so far.

This is deeply counterintuitive. When we expect something to last a finite time, every year it goes on, brings us a year closer to when it stops. But every year that it goes on properly brings the expectation that it will go on for a year longer still.

We're looking at a trend. We believe that it will be finite. Our intuition for that is that every year spent, is a year closer to the end. But our expectation becomes that every year spent, means that it will last yet another year more!

How can we apply that? A simple way is stocks. How long should we expect a rapidly growing company, to continue growing rapidly?

Re: The sigmoids won't save you

#38
post #17

News flash: predicting the future is hard

The individual who is the best at predicting the future is predicting ASI and full labor automation by 2040: https://xcancel.com/peterwildeford/status/202963666232244661...

> The individual who is the best at predicting the future

Lol

Re: The sigmoids won't save you

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The individual who is the best at predicting the future is predicting ASI and full labor automation by 2040: https://xcancel.com/peterwildeford/status/202963666232244661...

> The individual who is the best at predicting the future Going to need a big citation for that claim

Source: trust me bro

Re: The sigmoids won't save you

#40
The other thing people don’t understand is exponential curves are self similar. The start of an exponential looks like an exponential. People always look at and think ‘well that’s it it’s exponential now, have missed it, can’t sustain’. Nope.

Good example of this is number of submissions to neurips/icml/iclr. In 2017 that curve was exponential.

Post reply on HN