They are using the current models to help develop even smarter models. Each generation of model can help even more for the next generation.

I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to say that we may be only a single digit number of years away from the singularity.

▲

mrandish 19 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> using the current models to help develop even smarter models.

That statement is plausible. However, extrapolating that to assert all the very different things which must be true to enable any form of 'singularity' would be a profound category error. There are many ways in which your first two sentences can be entirely true, while your third sentence requires a bunch of fundamental and extraordinary things to be true for which there is currently zero evidence.

Things like LLMs improving themselves in meaningful and novel ways and then iterating that self-improvement over multiple unattended generations in exponential runaway positive feedback loops resulting in tangible, real-world utility. All the impressive and rapid achievements in LLMs to date can still be true while major elements required for Foom-ish exponential take-off are still missing.

▲

lm28469 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I must be holding these things wrong because I'm not seeing any of these God like superpowers everyone seem to enjoy.

▲

brokencode 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Who said they’re godlike today?

And yes, you are probably using them wrong if you don’t find them useful or don’t see the rapid improvement.

▲

lm28469 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Let's come back in 12 months and discuss your singularity then. Meanwhile I spent like $30 on a few models as a test yesterday, none of them could tell me why my goroutine system was failing, even though it was painfully obvious (I purposefully added one too many wg.Done), gemini, codex, minimax 2.5, they all shat the bed on a very obvious problem but I am to believe they're 98% conscious and better at logic and math than 99% of the population.

Every new model release neckbeards come out of the basements to tell us the singularity will be there in two more weeks

▲

brokencode 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You are fighting straw men here. Any further discussion would be pointless.

▲

lm28469 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Of course, n-1 wasn't good enough but n+1 will be singularity, just two more weeks my dudes, two more week... rinse and repeat ad infinitum

	▲	brokencode 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Like I said, pointless strawmanning. You’ve once again made up a claim of “two more weeks” to argue against even though it’s not something anybody here has claimed. If you feel the need to make an argument against claims that exist only in your head, maybe you can also keep the argument only in your head too?

▲

BeetleB 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

On the flip side, twice I put about 800K tokens of code into Gemini and asked it to find why my code was misbehaving, and it found it.

The logic related to the bug wasn't all contained in one file, but across several files.

This was Gemini 2.5 Pro. A whole generation old.

▲

woah 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Post the file here

▲

logicprog 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Meanwhile I've been using Kimi K2T and K2.5 to work in Go with a fair amount of concurrency and it's been able to write concurrent Go code and debug issues with goroutines equal to, and much more complex then, your issue, involving race conditions and more, just fine.

Projects:

https://github.com/alexispurslane/oxen

https://github.com/alexispurslane/org-lsp

(Note that org-lsp has a much improved version of the same indexer as oxen; the first was purely my design, the second I decided to listen to K2.5 more and it found a bunch of potential race conditions and fixed them)

shrug

▲

Izikiel43 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Out of curiosity, did you give a test for them to validate the code?

I had a test failing because I introduced a silly comparison bug (> instead of <), and claude 4.6 opus figured out it wasn't the test the problem, but the code and fixed the bug (which I had missed).

▲

lm28469 3 hours ago | parent [-]

There was a test and a very useful golang error that literally explain what was wrong. The model tried implementing a solution, failed and when I pointed out the error most of them just rolled back the "solution"

	▲	Izikiel43 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ok, thanks for the info

▲

sekai 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to say that we may be only a single digit number of years away from the singularity.

We're back to singularity hype, but let's be real: benchmark gains are meaningless in the real world when the primary focus has shifted to gaming the metrics

▲

brokencode 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Ok, here I am living in the real world finding these models have advanced incredibly over the past year for coding.

Benchmaxxing exists, but that’s not the only data point. It’s pretty clear that models are improving quickly in many domains in real world usage.

	▲	mrbungie an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yet even Anthropic has shown the downsides to using them. I don't think it is a given that improvements in models scores and capabilities + being able to churn code as fast as we can will lead us to a singularity, we'll need more than that.