Hacker News Reader

Comment by visarga | Hacker News Reader

> so it's assumed that progress will continue at that pace. We've made this mistake time and time again before self driving cars and evidently continue to make that mistake now

We are making the same mistake now with chatGPT. We think if it progressed so much in the last 3 years, future progress will go at the same speed. But the last 1% is exponentially harder than the previous 99%.

View on HN

Yeh thats what I was getting at, though in reality the expectations are even more unrealistic. A lot of the (less technical) people I've spoken to haven't been saying that so much progress has been made in a matter of years, but a matter of months. Because of course if you weren't following the early development of these models, it appears that chatGPT came out of nowhere

> But the last 1% is exponentially harder than the previous 99%.

Also, sometimes (often?) you can quickly make a lot of progress using the WRONG methods that are completely useless in the remaining 50% or more of the work.

Then that field hits a dead end and is mothballed until a decade or so later when sometimes dares to restart it from a fresh perspective.

I agree.

if we have a model that can do (end to end) the role of a lawyer, scientist or software engineer, then I think we have reached AGI.

AI has had a few step change events recently - AlphaGo, AlphaZero, now ChatGPT and StableDiffusion

we may very well get another step change soon

or we may never get another one!

No. There is no incentive for car AI to improve because everyone knows it won't be allowed for basically forever. Chat AI is here and will progress, so there's massive incentive for it to improve.

Chat AI will improve at at least 10x the rate as car AI.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com