3 ms·
Yeah I don't understand it, it's a marathon with three companies perpetually a minute ahead, and people keep saying "I expect the stragglers to catch up". The
by stavros 7mo ago
Yeah I don't understand it, it's a marathon with three companies perpetually a minute ahead, and people keep saying "I expect the stragglers to catch up".
The only thing I can see them meaning is what you said, "in a minute the stragglers will be where the leaders were a minute ago", which, yeah, sure.
- mrbombastic 7mo agoIt makes perfect sense if you think things cannot improve indefinitely
- inciampati 7mo agoThey do approximate any function... within the range they're trained on. And that range is human limited, at least today.
- PunchyHamster 7mo agoAlso, there is a good enough point where improvements for a given use case are on heavy diminishing returns
- patrickmcnamara 7mo agoIt's not a marathon, or any race. There is no a finish line. It doesn't matter that much that someone is a minute ahead.
- ReliantGuyZ 7mo agoBy my estimation, there is a point where these models are "good enough" for the vast vast majority of all appropriate tasks, after which point further investment by the major labs will have diminishing returns. While they might stay ahead by some measure, the open models will be good enough too, and I assume significantly cheaper like they are now. Or AGI hits and this theory collapses, but that's feeling less likely every day.
- lelanthran 7mo agoThat's fine. I can afford to wait a minute if it means I pay $10/m instead of $5k/m.