4 ms·

>By my read of the (very sparse) data, we're getting linear improvements in capability for super-linear increases in costs. [1] Indicates that by 2027 models wi

>By my read of the (very sparse) data, we're getting linear improvements in capability for super-linear increases in costs. [1] Indicates that by 2027 models will cost $1 billon to train. Dario estimates that model runs will cost $10 billion in 2026 [2]. That to me indicates costs are potentially growing faster than capability. Maybe by quite a bit. This is true and well established. As long as you get any improvement whatsoever, it is worth spending to train since it pays off during. Imagine training was not $1 billion but $100 billion but the performance improved by just 10%. This is still worth it because you can squeeze out the profits across years and years right? The improvement is ever lasting. > The best data shows that LLM use might be destroying value [3]. This is basically a conspiracy theory and if you really believed this, you should not have led with "How is the capability advancement vs dollars paid for development?" because if there were no value, it doesn't really matter how much you invest.

oudlys 5mo ago
>This is basically a conspiracy theory I think this is pretty uncharitable, especially when I've provided you with a dataset you can evaluate yourself and an argument you can review for logical inconsistency. I have worked quite hard to locate data that supports your thesis, I can't find it. I've at least gone to the effort of documenting that search. Before you throw around such strong convictions, I suggest you actually look for yourself.
- simianwords 5mo ago
  Respectfully, your link is not very convincing. But what’s interesting is that you are commenting on a post where Dario is suggesting that LLMs are so extremely powerful that they can take over, help synthesise bioweapons, help in warfare, help in drug discovery — the whole post here is to try and regulate this. If you believe AI can’t even create positive value let alone discover new things then your problem is somewhere else and not in something like “but training costs a lot”. So it is absolutely strange and contrasting to see you believe that LLMs are so weak as to create negative value while the CEO is asking about regulations because AI is too powerful. I don’t think I can convince you that AI is actually that powerful. But let me ask you something directly: if you believe what you believe, you should also acknowledge that AI doesn’t need regulations in the context Dario is proposing since obviously AI can’t do anything he predicts. Do you agree?
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - dag100 5mo ago
    > So it is absolutely strange and contrasting to see you believe that LLMs are so weak as to create negative value while the CEO is asking about regulations because AI is too powerful. You wouldn't ask a chemistry professor to write code. So just because LLMs create negative value for software development doesn't mean that they can't be helpful for bioweapons synthesis, especially considering the range of chemistry and biology sources Anthropic would have fed to its LLM that wouldn't be publicly accessible. The LLM doesn't even need to be particularly accurate so long as the amateur bioweapons researcher takes adequate precautions before following its instructions and does some background research beforehand.
    - simianwords 5mo ago
      This is a ridiculous stance to take. That LLMs are simultaneously negative value but can also help synthesise bioweapons. It’s the sort of stance you take when you already feel ideologically against AI. I don’t think it’s coherent.
      - oudlys 5mo ago
        >This is a ridiculous stance to take. I encourage you to be more curious. We're just talking. We would learn more from each other without these strong statements.
      - icepush 5mo ago
        Is synthesizing bioweapons positive or negative value ?
      - dag100 5mo ago
        It's more about information availability rather than intelligence. An LLM has had access to more information during its training period than you'd ever even come across over a hundred lifetimes. It has been trained on billions of books and articles across every single subject that exists on the planet. Can you imagine what real intelligence could do with all that information?

oudlys 5mo ago

>This is basically a conspiracy theory I think this is pretty uncharitable, especially when I've provided you with a dataset you can evaluate yourself and an argument you can review for logical inconsistency. I have worked quite hard to locate data that supports your thesis, I can't find it. I've at least gone to the effort of documenting that search. Before you throw around such strong convictions, I suggest you actually look for yourself.

simianwords 5mo ago
Respectfully, your link is not very convincing. But what’s interesting is that you are commenting on a post where Dario is suggesting that LLMs are so extremely powerful that they can take over, help synthesise bioweapons, help in warfare, help in drug discovery — the whole post here is to try and regulate this. If you believe AI can’t even create positive value let alone discover new things then your problem is somewhere else and not in something like “but training costs a lot”. So it is absolutely strange and contrasting to see you believe that LLMs are so weak as to create negative value while the CEO is asking about regulations because AI is too powerful. I don’t think I can convince you that AI is actually that powerful. But let me ask you something directly: if you believe what you believe, you should also acknowledge that AI doesn’t need regulations in the context Dario is proposing since obviously AI can’t do anything he predicts. Do you agree?
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- dag100 5mo ago
  > So it is absolutely strange and contrasting to see you believe that LLMs are so weak as to create negative value while the CEO is asking about regulations because AI is too powerful. You wouldn't ask a chemistry professor to write code. So just because LLMs create negative value for software development doesn't mean that they can't be helpful for bioweapons synthesis, especially considering the range of chemistry and biology sources Anthropic would have fed to its LLM that wouldn't be publicly accessible. The LLM doesn't even need to be particularly accurate so long as the amateur bioweapons researcher takes adequate precautions before following its instructions and does some background research beforehand.
  - simianwords 5mo ago
    This is a ridiculous stance to take. That LLMs are simultaneously negative value but can also help synthesise bioweapons. It’s the sort of stance you take when you already feel ideologically against AI. I don’t think it’s coherent.
    - oudlys 5mo ago
      >This is a ridiculous stance to take. I encourage you to be more curious. We're just talking. We would learn more from each other without these strong statements.
    - icepush 5mo ago
      Is synthesizing bioweapons positive or negative value ?
    - dag100 5mo ago
      It's more about information availability rather than intelligence. An LLM has had access to more information during its training period than you'd ever even come across over a hundred lifetimes. It has been trained on billions of books and articles across every single subject that exists on the planet. Can you imagine what real intelligence could do with all that information?