Thread

1. tefkah · 1789640261 · focus · HN ↗

   [dead]

   1. binsquare · 1789641149 · focus · HN ↗

      Given the rate of improvement, why is this deranged?

      1. sixeyes · 1789641907 · focus · HN ↗

         because the rate of improvement is fairly stalled?

         1. xyzsparetimexyz · 1789642072 · focus · HN ↗

            Do you have anything that proves this one way or another that isn't based on vibes or shoddy benchmarks?

            1. koe123 · 1789642227 · focus · HN ↗

               You prove your own point no? You are asking for a benchmark to prove AGAINST ASI. Surely the burden of proof for such a scientific fiction concept should be the other way around.

               1. phoghed · 1789642609 · focus · HN ↗

                  No, they asked for a reliable measurement to prove that model development has stalled. Nobody is talking about ASI except you.

                  1. jdiff · 1789643086 · focus · HN ↗

                     Nah, they're fine making that small leap. RSI is the new marketing term for the sci fi singularity.

                     1. phoghed · 1789643428 · focus · HN ↗

                        >> because the rate of improvement is fairly stalled?

                        > Do you have anything that proves this one way or another that isn't based on vibes or shoddy benchmarks?

                        They clearly aren’t talking about RSI here, but that model development has stalled in general.

                        1. [deleted] · 1789685503 · focus · HN ↗

                           [deleted]

                  2. koe123 · 1789650622 · focus · HN ↗

                     Sorry I meant RSI
               2. xyzsparetimexyz · 1789673362 · focus · HN ↗

                  I don't think these benchmarks like humanity's last exam or whatever have much value.
         2. pizza234 · 1789642496 · focus · HN ↗

            You're tragically misinformed; it isn't. Several metrics are actually growing exponentially. But if you want emprical information, you can just have al look at the nature of the late AI incidents.

            Ironically, many benchmarks being maxxed out, and quite quickly, so new ones have to be created.

            1. simonw_simonw_ · 1789642538 · focus · HN ↗

               [dead]

            2. georgefloydd · 1789643036 · focus · HN ↗

               [dead]

            3. imp0cat · 1789644735 · focus · HN ↗

                   Several metrics are actually growing exponentially.
               

               Power consumption and water consuption are the obvious ones. What are the others?
            4. ttoinou · 1789644933 · focus · HN ↗

               The AI "incidents" are pure marketing ploys to get free word of mouth. Like what you're doing.
            5. glimshe · 1789645795 · focus · HN ↗

               If you knew what "exponentially" means, you probably wouldn't be saying that.
            6. heresiarch39 · 1789664031 · focus · HN ↗

               Which metrics?
         3. scarmig · 1789643008 · focus · HN ↗

            Yeah, it's been over a week since a Millennium Problem was solved. AI has hit a wall.

            1. etamponi · 1789643374 · focus · HN ↗

               It was not solved. ~OpenAI~ Buckmaster and Alpöge found one (or a few) singularities in the forced version of the Navier-Stokes equations. Then magically 2 weeks later OpenAI found them too. Again, I am not saying this is not a great feat. I am just saying that everyone should be a bit more careful when making statements about RSI.

               1. red75prime · 1789645322 · focus · HN ↗

                  Buckmaster and Alpöge has found a forced finite-time singularity for the 3D incompressible Euler equations (and two other types) building on the work by Diego Córdoba and Luis Martínez-Zoroa with the assistance of Anthropic and OpenAI models. Then OpenAI found a forced finite-time singularity for the Navier-Stokes equations.

                  TL;DR Buckmaster and Alpöge haven't solved Navier-Stokes blow up.

                  How information can get so distorted when it's trivial to fact check?

               2. scarmig · 1789661190 · focus · HN ↗

                  As the sibling comment points out, that is incorrect: they solved a smaller, simpler problem, and OAI solved the actual Millennium Problem. But even if they had solved the actual problem and OAI stole it by digging through chats, that hardly supports the "AI has stalled" thesis; Claude played the major role in creating their blowup to a different problem.

                  How, exactly, does "it was Claude that solved Navier Stokes, not ChatGPT!" get you to "AI has hit a wall and stalled"? That's, not to put too fine a point on it, incoherent, and is just noise thrown into the discussion to avoid grappling with the fact that AI continues to rapidly improve.

         4. owebmaster · 1789645719 · focus · HN ↗

            Kind of but there's a lot of improvements available to the competitors catching up
      2. meyer3423 · 1789641997 · focus · HN ↗

         [dead]

      3. ramon156 · 1789642081 · focus · HN ↗

         if you can be replaced by an algorithm, how useful were you really?

         1. simonw_simonw_ · 1789642496 · focus · HN ↗

            [dead]

         2. azan_ · 1789643023 · focus · HN ↗

            Very useful. That’s a weird question.

            1. fc417fc802 · 1789644610 · focus · HN ↗

               I aspire to be at least as useful as bogosort.
      4. simonw_simonw_ · 1789642453 · focus · HN ↗

         [dead]

      5. tefkah · 1789815796 · focus · HN ↗

         Because pursuing your own replacement is deranged.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.