‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

How GLM built its own inference infrastructure

411 points · 285 comments · whiteros_e

  1. tefkah · · focus · HN ↗

    [dead]

    1. binsquare · · focus · HN ↗
      Given the rate of improvement, why is this deranged?
      1. sixeyes · · focus · HN ↗
        because the rate of improvement is fairly stalled?
        1. scarmig · · focus · HN ↗
          Yeah, it's been over a week since a Millennium Problem was solved. AI has hit a wall.
          1. etamponi · · 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. scarmig · · 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.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.