3 ms·

I don't think I have ever seen a page on HN where so many people missed the main point. The phenomenon of people having trouble understanding the implications

I don't think I have ever seen a page on HN where so many people missed the main point. The phenomenon of people having trouble understanding the implications of exponential progress is really well known. Well known, I think, by many people here. And yet an alarming number of comments here interpret small pauses as serious trend breakers. False assumptions that we are anywhere near the limits of computing power relative to fundamental physics limits. Etc. Recent progress, which is unprecedented in speed looking backward, is dismissed because people have acclimatized to change so quickly. The title of the article "Failing to Understand the Exponential, Again" is far more apt than I could have imagined, on HN. See my other comments here for specific arguments. See lots of comments here for examples of those who are skeptical of a strong inevitability here. The "information revolution" started the first time design information was separated from the thing it could construct. I.e. the first DNA or perhaps RNA life. And it has unrelentingly accelerated from there for over 4.5 billion years. The known physics limits of computation per gram are astronomical. We are nowhere near any hard limit. And that is before any speculation of what could be done with the components of spacetime fragments we don't understand yet. Or physics beyond that. The information revolution has hardly begun. With all humor, this was the last place I expected people to not understand how different information technology progresses vs. any other kind. Or to revert to linear based arguments, in an exponentially relevant situation. If there is any S-curve for information technology in general, it won't be apparent until long after humans are a distant memory.

tim333 1y ago
I'm a little surprised too. A lot of the arguments are along the lines of but LLMs aren't very good. But really LLMs are a brief phase in the information revolution you mention that will be superseded. To me saying we won't get AGI because LLMs aren't suitable is like saying we were not going to get powered flight because steam engines weren't suitable. Fair enough they weren't but they got modified into internal combustion engines and then were. Something like that will happen.

tim333 1y ago

I'm a little surprised too. A lot of the arguments are along the lines of but LLMs aren't very good. But really LLMs are a brief phase in the information revolution you mention that will be superseded. To me saying we won't get AGI because LLMs aren't suitable is like saying we were not going to get powered flight because steam engines weren't suitable. Fair enough they weren't but they got modified into internal combustion engines and then were. Something like that will happen.