> Do you see any reason progress will stop abruptly here?

Yeah, money and energy. And fundamental limitations of LLM's. I mean, I'm obviously guessing as well because I'm not an expert, but it's a view shared by some of the biggest experts in the field ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I just don't really buy the idea that we're going to have near-infinite linear or exponential progress until we reach AGI. Reality rarely works like that.

▲

selridge 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So far the people who bet against scaling laws have all lost money. That does not mean that their luck won’t change, but we should at least admit the winning streak.

▲

slopinthebag 7 hours ago | parent [-]

You mean Moore's law? Which is now dead?

▲

selridge 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No I don't mean that. I mean the LLM parameter scaling laws. More importantly, it doesn't matter if I mean that or Moore's law or anything else, because I'm not making a forward looking prediction.

Read what I wrote.

I'm saying is if you bet AGAINST [LLM] scaling laws--meaning you bet that the output would peter out naturally somehow--you've lost 100% so far.

100%

Tomorrow could be your lucky day.

Or not.

▲

slopinthebag 5 hours ago | parent [-]

This weekend I had 100% success at the blackjack table, until I didn't and lost.

I guess we'll see :)

	▲	selridge 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You gonna go read up on some 0% success rate strategies on the way? What I’m saying is that we act as though claims about these scaling laws have never been tested. People feel free to just assert that any minute now the train will stop. They have been saying that since the Stochastic parrots. It has not come true yet. Tomorrow could be it. Maybe the day after. But it would then be the first victory.

▲

_zoltan_ 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

it's not dead. it's enough to look at GB200/GB300 vs Vera Rubin specs.

▲

azakai 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At the very least, computers are still getting faster. Models will get faster and cheaper to run over time, allowing them more time to "think", and we know that helps. Might be slow progress, but it seems inevitable.

I do agree that exponential progress to AGI is speculation.

▲

conception 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You think all AI companies will never release a better model days after they all release better models?

That is a position to take.

▲

empthought 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I know some proponents have AGI as their target, but to me it seems to be unrelated to the steadily increasing effectiveness of using LLMs to write computer code.

I think of it as just another leap in human-computer interface for programming, and a welcome one at that.

	▲	nitwit005 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If you imagine it just keeps improving, the end point would be some sort of AGI though. Logically, once you have something better at making software than humans, you can ask it to make a better AI than we were able to make.