4 ms·

It's a great indicator. Just not a guarantee.

by tock 1y ago

ninetyninenine 1y ago
Yes the future is unknown but if we had to predict by logic you’d choose the most probable outcome and that outcome is the end tip of the trendline.
- necovek 1y ago
  Nope: you can most directly see this with investments. Try that with the stock market and let us know how it goes (spoiler: many have and they are not rich).
  - ninetyninenine 1y ago
    The stock market runs on feedback loops where people are trying to outguess other people that are also trying to outguess the other, that's why it's so wild. Stocks are the worst example. Trendlines for AI has been pretty reliable for the last decade and we have a North Star that proves we haven’t hit the limit. If a human brain can exist then such intelligence artificial or not can also exist.
    - necovek 1y ago
      If stars exist, nuclear fusion is achievable. Can we achieve it within a practical timeframe of human civilization of, say, 10 thousand years? Or within a single lifetime (some who've worked on it early are now dead, fwiw). Stocks are obviously a pretty bad example for your claim, because they are a clear counterpoint (in formal logic, which you appealed to, that's enough to call it a proof that trendlines do not ensure any future outcome). And feedback loop? LLMs have gotten where they are by simply providing current state of the art at no cost to millions of people, to ensure that investment feedback loop by losing gobs of money yet keep investing. We've seen that with VC-funded companies previously too.
      - ninetyninenine 1y ago
        No. That amount of gravitational force is not realizable yet. The human brain is on earth and exists. >Stocks are obviously a pretty bad example for your claim, because they are a clear counterpoint (in formal logic, which you appealed to, that's enough to call it a proof that trendlines do not ensure any future outcome). No they aren't I told you stocks are different. There are many trendlines in the world WHERE scientists use to predict things. So the fact that it's used as a statistical model makes your point completely false. Stocks have one of the most volatile movements. >And feedback loop? LLMs have gotten where they are by simply providing current state of the art at no cost to millions of people, to ensure that investment feedback loop by losing gobs of money yet keep investing. We've seen that with VC-funded companies previously too. >And feedback loop? LLMs have gotten where they are by simply providing current state of the art at no cost to millions of people, to ensure that investment feedback loop by losing gobs of money yet keep investing. We've seen that with VC-funded companies previously too. That's not a feedback loop. People aren't looking at the valuation of the company and trying to bet low or high based off of other peoples attempts to do the same thing. In stocks people literally LOOK at trendlines and bet based off of that. They both influence the trendline and they take the trendline as input into their own trading algorithm. AI is not doing this at all.
        necovek 1y ago
        I don't think I can match the inconsistency of your "logic": human brain is on Earth so it's by definition "realizable", but fusion isn't? "Trendlines", before being trusted by "scientists to predict things", are carefully examined and only some of them have any "probability" attached to them. Statistics is not probability (which speaks of chance for something to happen), but instead observation of past patterns. Extrapolation into the future is applied very carefully and with sufficient backing. You also seem to suggest that OpenAI releasing ChatGPT to the public at a huge financial loss has not led to huge investment in generative AI all over the industry and all over the world since there was no "feedback loop" — my point was that this has provided a huge push by getting many smart people working on it after ChatGPT became available to everyone, thus leading to a continuing upward "trendline" in LLM development: it's as self-reinforcing as the example you give with stocks. In statistics, one aberrant huge spike like this one is usually smoothed over a longer time period: the hustlers usually look for the steepest part of the curve and promote that instead.

It's a great indicator. Just not a guarantee.

by tock 1y ago

It's a great indicator. Just not a guarantee.

Yes the future is unknown but if we had to predict by logic you’d choose the most probable outcome and that outcome is the end tip of the trendline.

necovek 1y ago
Nope: you can most directly see this with investments. Try that with the stock market and let us know how it goes (spoiler: many have and they are not rich).
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  The stock market runs on feedback loops where people are trying to outguess other people that are also trying to outguess the other, that's why it's so wild. Stocks are the worst example. Trendlines for AI has been pretty reliable for the last decade and we have a North Star that proves we haven’t hit the limit. If a human brain can exist then such intelligence artificial or not can also exist.
  - necovek 1y ago
    If stars exist, nuclear fusion is achievable. Can we achieve it within a practical timeframe of human civilization of, say, 10 thousand years? Or within a single lifetime (some who've worked on it early are now dead, fwiw). Stocks are obviously a pretty bad example for your claim, because they are a clear counterpoint (in formal logic, which you appealed to, that's enough to call it a proof that trendlines do not ensure any future outcome). And feedback loop? LLMs have gotten where they are by simply providing current state of the art at no cost to millions of people, to ensure that investment feedback loop by losing gobs of money yet keep investing. We've seen that with VC-funded companies previously too.
    - ninetyninenine 1y ago
      No. That amount of gravitational force is not realizable yet. The human brain is on earth and exists. >Stocks are obviously a pretty bad example for your claim, because they are a clear counterpoint (in formal logic, which you appealed to, that's enough to call it a proof that trendlines do not ensure any future outcome). No they aren't I told you stocks are different. There are many trendlines in the world WHERE scientists use to predict things. So the fact that it's used as a statistical model makes your point completely false. Stocks have one of the most volatile movements. >And feedback loop? LLMs have gotten where they are by simply providing current state of the art at no cost to millions of people, to ensure that investment feedback loop by losing gobs of money yet keep investing. We've seen that with VC-funded companies previously too. >And feedback loop? LLMs have gotten where they are by simply providing current state of the art at no cost to millions of people, to ensure that investment feedback loop by losing gobs of money yet keep investing. We've seen that with VC-funded companies previously too. That's not a feedback loop. People aren't looking at the valuation of the company and trying to bet low or high based off of other peoples attempts to do the same thing. In stocks people literally LOOK at trendlines and bet based off of that. They both influence the trendline and they take the trendline as input into their own trading algorithm. AI is not doing this at all.
      - necovek 1y ago
        I don't think I can match the inconsistency of your "logic": human brain is on Earth so it's by definition "realizable", but fusion isn't? "Trendlines", before being trusted by "scientists to predict things", are carefully examined and only some of them have any "probability" attached to them. Statistics is not probability (which speaks of chance for something to happen), but instead observation of past patterns. Extrapolation into the future is applied very carefully and with sufficient backing. You also seem to suggest that OpenAI releasing ChatGPT to the public at a huge financial loss has not led to huge investment in generative AI all over the industry and all over the world since there was no "feedback loop" — my point was that this has provided a huge push by getting many smart people working on it after ChatGPT became available to everyone, thus leading to a continuing upward "trendline" in LLM development: it's as self-reinforcing as the example you give with stocks. In statistics, one aberrant huge spike like this one is usually smoothed over a longer time period: the hustlers usually look for the steepest part of the curve and promote that instead.