> Well, the first 90% is easy, the hard part is the second 90%.

You'd need to prove that this assertion applies here. I understand that you can't deduce the future gains rate from the past, but you also can't state this as universal truth.

▲

bayindirh 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

No, I don't need to. Self driving cars is the most recent and biggest example sans LLMs. The saying I have quoted (which has different forms) is valid for programming, construction and even cooking. So it's a simple, well understood baseline.

Knowledge engineering has a notion called "covered/invisible knowledge" which points to the small things we do unknowingly but changes the whole outcome. None of the models (even AI in general) can capture this. We can say it's the essence of being human or the tribal knowledge which makes experienced worker who they are or makes mom's rice taste that good.

Considering these are highly individualized and unique behaviors, a model based on averaging everything can't capture this essence easily if it can ever without extensive fine-tuning for/with that particular person.

▲

damethos a day ago | parent | next [-]

"covered/invisible knowledge" aka tacit knowledge

	▲	bayindirh a day ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, I failed to remember the term while writing the comment. Thanks!

▲

rat9988 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Self driving cars is not a proof. It only proves that having quick gains doesn't mean necessarily you'll get a 100% fast. It doesn't prove it will necessarily happen.

▲

enraged_camel 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>> No, I don't need to. Self driving cars is the most recent and biggest example sans LLMs.

Self-driving cars don't use LLMs, so I don't know how any rational analysis can claim that the analogy is valid.

>> The saying I have quoted (which has different forms) is valid for programming, construction and even cooking. So it's a simple, well understood baseline.

Sure, but the question is not "how long does it take for LLMs to get to 100%". The question is, how long does it take for them to become as good as, or better than, humans. And that threshold happens way before 100%.

	▲	bayindirh 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		>> Self-driving cars don't use LLMs, so I don't know how any rational analysis can claim that the analogy is valid. Doesn't matter, because if we're talking about AI models, no (type of) model reaches 100% linearly, or 100% ever. For example, recognition models run with probabilities. Like Tesla's Autopilot (TM), which loves to hit rolled-over vehicles because it has not seen enough vehicle underbodies to classify it. Same for scientific classification models. They emit probabilities, not certain results. >> Sure, but the question is not "how long does it take for LLMs to get to 100%" I never claimed that a model needs to reach a proverbial 100%. >> The question is, how long does it take for them to become as good as, or better than, humans. They can be better than humans for certain tasks. They are actually better than humans in some tasks since 70s, but we like to disregard them to romanticize current improvements, but I don't believe current or any generation of AIs can be better than humans in anything and everything, at once. Remember: No machine can construct something more complex than itself. >> And that threshold happens way before 100%. Yes, and I consider that "treshold" as "complete", if they can ever reach it for certain tasks, not "any" task.

▲

thfuran 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>None of the models (even AI in general) can capture this

None of the current models maybe, but not AI in general? There’s nothing magical about brains. In fact, they’re pretty shit in many ways.

▲

bayindirh 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

A model trained on a very large corpus can't, because these behaviors are different or specialized enough they cancel each other most of the cases. You can forcefully fine-tune a model with a singular person's behavior up to a certain point, but I'm not sure that even that can capture the subtlest of behaviors or decision mechanisms which are generally the most important ones (the ones we call gut feeling or instinct).

OTOH, while I won't call human brain perfect, the things we label "shit" generally turn out to be very clever and useful optimizations to workaround its own limitations, so I regard human brain higher than most AI proponents do. Also we shouldn't forget that we don't know much about how that thing works. We only guess and try to model it.

Lastly, searching perfection in numbers and charts or in engineering sense is misunderstanding nature and doing a great disservice to it, but this is a subject for another day.

▲

emodendroket 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The understanding of the brain is far from complete whether they're "magical" or "shit."

	▲	D-Machine 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Also obviously brains are both!

▲

sanderjd 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I read the comment more as "based on past experience, it is usually the case that the first 90% is easier than the last 10%", which is the right base case expectation, I think. That doesn't mean it will definitely play out that way, but you don't have to "prove" things like this. You can just say that they tend to be true, so it's a good expectation to think it will probably be true again.

▲

rybosworld 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The saying is more or less treated as a truism at this point. OP isn't claiming something original and the onus of proving it isn't on them imo.

I've heard this same thing repeated dozens of times, and for different domains/industries.

It's really just a variation of the 80/20 rule.