4 ms·

Can anyone from a lab anonymously confirm they have or are insanely close to real-time weight modifications and still using the same architecture every other la

Can anyone from a lab anonymously confirm they have or are insanely close to real-time weight modifications and still using the same architecture every other lab is using (transformers)?

Betelbuddy 13d ago
>> real-time weight modifications You mean training? Yeah we call that training an LLM in my backyard...
- fooker 13d ago
  We don't really train deployed models in realtime in any realistic sense nowadays. It used to be a thing when ML was pretty much about classifying things into buckets.
  - bigfishrunning 13d ago
    > ML was pretty much about classifying things into buckets. It still is, it's just that there are a ton of buckets.
  - LogicFailsMe 13d ago
    May I introduce you to the word of our lord the arc-agi-3 kaggle competition? Because that's how they've hit 18% on a single RTX Pro 6000 with DIY RSI.
    - fooker 13d ago
      Where can I read more about this?
      - LogicFailsMe 12d ago
        https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/arc-prize-2026-arc-agi-3 https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/arc-prize-2026-arc-agi-3
- swingboy 13d ago
  You don’t know the difference between train and test time? I asked for somebody from a lab.
  - theowaway213456 13d ago
    At least they clarified they are in a yard rather than a lab.
  - orbital-decay 13d ago
    Well, you just said real-time weight modifications without specifying what you want, so the answer is correct. You obviously won't get a public answer from anyone working in top labs. Besides, it's not a holy grail.
frabcus 13d ago
If it helps, this person from OpenAI explains at least something: "I realize that no one has properly explained yet what all the lab employees have seen that scared them so suddenly." https://x.com/MajmudarAdam/status/2098881885200081234 https://x.com/MajmudarAdam/status/2098881885200081234 The explanation is basically they have other dimensions (not just pretraining and inference compute) that scale, and they've got fairly convincing scaling laws. And they know they can scale it. So they are very confident they can get more capabilities easily, faster than before. I'd add - presumably, they'll use that LLM to do real-time weight modifications, if those aren't already one of the new scaling laws...
- swingboy 13d ago
  I’m apprehensive about using the recent hacking examples as proof that we’re “not even close to the wall” simply because such scenarios haven’t happened before. There’s a big difference between agents eventually hacking something because they just don’t get tired and can essentially brute force their way to a goal and super-intelligence. To be clear, I’m not saying the Hugging Face or Navier Stokes incidents aren’t impressive.
- LogicFailsMe 13d ago
  Stephen Hawking had superhuman intelligence. He never cured himself of ALS. Explain in great detail how a power-limited algorithm stuck in a datacenter takes over a world of humans with guns, missiles, and nukes. Nukes that are air-gapped with a human in the loop BTW. Imagine the ASI happens tomorrow. It's real. It needs a GW, but it's real. Other than a scenario akin to Sneakers except w/r to cyber-security, really, what happens? To that end, all we ever get is nontechnical hand-waving about curing cancer, immortality, and von Neumann replicators and then the ASI somehow wipes us out but how? And don't you dare say by designing a chemical weapon or bio agent without spelling out the entire process step by $%^#ing step because details matter. It's gonna do superpersuasion, sure, but have you ever heard of komprimat? There is nothing new under the sun here. Edit: believing in AI 2027 is every bit as cray cray as believing in the rapture. Both require an insane leap of faith to reach their final conclusions.
  - 13d ago

Can anyone from a lab anonymously confirm they have or are insanely close to real-time weight modifications and still using the same architecture every other lab is using (transformers)?

Betelbuddy 13d ago

>> real-time weight modifications You mean training? Yeah we call that training an LLM in my backyard...

fooker 13d ago
We don't really train deployed models in realtime in any realistic sense nowadays. It used to be a thing when ML was pretty much about classifying things into buckets.
- bigfishrunning 13d ago
  > ML was pretty much about classifying things into buckets. It still is, it's just that there are a ton of buckets.
- LogicFailsMe 13d ago
  May I introduce you to the word of our lord the arc-agi-3 kaggle competition? Because that's how they've hit 18% on a single RTX Pro 6000 with DIY RSI.
  - fooker 13d ago
    Where can I read more about this?
    - LogicFailsMe 12d ago
      https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/arc-prize-2026-arc-agi-3 https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/arc-prize-2026-arc-agi-3
swingboy 13d ago
You don’t know the difference between train and test time? I asked for somebody from a lab.
- theowaway213456 13d ago
  At least they clarified they are in a yard rather than a lab.
- orbital-decay 13d ago
  Well, you just said real-time weight modifications without specifying what you want, so the answer is correct. You obviously won't get a public answer from anyone working in top labs. Besides, it's not a holy grail.

frabcus 13d ago

If it helps, this person from OpenAI explains at least something: "I realize that no one has properly explained yet what all the lab employees have seen that scared them so suddenly." https://x.com/MajmudarAdam/status/2098881885200081234 https://x.com/MajmudarAdam/status/2098881885200081234 The explanation is basically they have other dimensions (not just pretraining and inference compute) that scale, and they've got fairly convincing scaling laws. And they know they can scale it. So they are very confident they can get more capabilities easily, faster than before. I'd add - presumably, they'll use that LLM to do real-time weight modifications, if those aren't already one of the new scaling laws...

swingboy 13d ago
I’m apprehensive about using the recent hacking examples as proof that we’re “not even close to the wall” simply because such scenarios haven’t happened before. There’s a big difference between agents eventually hacking something because they just don’t get tired and can essentially brute force their way to a goal and super-intelligence. To be clear, I’m not saying the Hugging Face or Navier Stokes incidents aren’t impressive.
LogicFailsMe 13d ago
Stephen Hawking had superhuman intelligence. He never cured himself of ALS. Explain in great detail how a power-limited algorithm stuck in a datacenter takes over a world of humans with guns, missiles, and nukes. Nukes that are air-gapped with a human in the loop BTW. Imagine the ASI happens tomorrow. It's real. It needs a GW, but it's real. Other than a scenario akin to Sneakers except w/r to cyber-security, really, what happens? To that end, all we ever get is nontechnical hand-waving about curing cancer, immortality, and von Neumann replicators and then the ASI somehow wipes us out but how? And don't you dare say by designing a chemical weapon or bio agent without spelling out the entire process step by $%^#ing step because details matter. It's gonna do superpersuasion, sure, but have you ever heard of komprimat? There is nothing new under the sun here. Edit: believing in AI 2027 is every bit as cray cray as believing in the rapture. Both require an insane leap of faith to reach their final conclusions.
- 13d ago