3 ms·
The first half of your post, I broadly agree with. The last part...I'm not sure. The idea that we will be able to compute-scale our way out of practically anyt
by danaris 9mo ago
The first half of your post, I broadly agree with.
The last part...I'm not sure. The idea that we will be able to compute-scale our way out of practically anything is so much taken for granted these days that many people seem to have lost sight of the fact that we have genuinely hit diminishing returns—first in the general-purpose computing scaling (end of Moore's Law, etc), and more recently in the ability to scale LLMs. There is no longer a guarantee that we can improve the performance of training, at the very least, for the larger models by more than a few percent, no matter how much new tech we throw at it. At least until we hit another major breakthrough (either hardware or software), and by their very nature those cannot be counted on.
Even if we can squeeze out a few more percent—or a few more tens of percent—of optimizations on training and inference, to the best of my understanding, that's going to be orders of magnitude too little yet to allow for running the full-size major models on consumer-level equipment.
- cheevly 9mo agoThis is so objectively false. Sometimes I can’t believe im even on HN anymore with the level of confidently incorrect assertions made.
- danaris 9mo agoYou, uh, wanna actually back that accusation up with some data there, chief?
- cheevly 9mo agoCompare models from one year ago (GPT-4o?) to models from this year (Opus 4.5?). There are literally hundreds of benchmarks and metrics you can find. What reality do you live in?
- danaris 9mo agoComparing two data points gets you a line. If you want to prove that there are not diminishing returns, you need to add at least one more data point in there. You're really not showing any evidence that you even understand how this kind of math works, let alone that my statement is false.