| ▲ | ipaddr 8 hours ago | |
"pace at which the models are getting smart is accelerating". The pace is decelerating. | ||
| ▲ | slwvx 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
My impression is that solar (and maybe wind?) energy have benefited from learning-by-doing [1][2] that has resulted in lower costs and/or improved performance each year. It seems reasonable to me that a similar process will apply to AI (at least in the long run). The rate of learning could be seen as a "pace" of improvement. I'm curious, do you have a reference for the deceleration of pace that you refer to? [1] https://emp.lbl.gov/news/new-study-refocuses-learning-curve [2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices-vs-cumula... | ||
| ▲ | crazygringo 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
I don't think anyone really knows, because there's no objective standard for determining progress. Lots of benchmarks exist where everyone agrees that higher scores are better, but there's no sense in which going from a score of 400 to 500 is the same progress as going from 600 to 700, or less, or more. They only really have directional validity. I mean, the scores might correspond to real-world productivity rates in some specific domain, but that just begs the question -- productivity rates on a specific task are not intelligence. | ||