If something is roughly as intelligent as a normal human expert in a given area, but 100 times faster, that would be a valid example of super intelligence.
I'm sure that by some definitions like this we've already discovered narrow super intelligence.
For example - breadth of knowledge. Is knowledge a kind of intelligence? If so then current agents absolutely have a breadth of knowledge which is superhuman.
Tortious really does win the race, and there is no such thing as a free lunch.
I'm not sure what my (or yours) point is, but like with all of AI it's a moving target - I still remember how image recognition was deep in researchy Artificial Intelligence territory. Nowadays it's such an obvious building block, nobody thinks of image classifiers as "intelligence".
100 years ago there's not a single person who would deny that computational ability is intelligence.
It's only since calculators because really good at it that you'd even think about asking the question.
I'm not really interested in popular media definitions of things.
5 Forms of Superintelligence (2018, review of Bostrom's Superintelligence from 2014)
Featuring .... the SPEED SUPERINTELLIGENCE! It really has been considered that way, even in scifi prior to the current AI epoch.
Nobody needs this, and the quality of models they're deploying, or all llms for that matter, require heavy human review (if you care at all about maintainability).
One developer can barely keep up with the daily output of multiple llm sessions writing code at 50 tps.
Im convinced anyone confidently thinking 2k tps is a no brainer is probably not concerned about the quality of their work (many such cases).
There are diminishing returns, but half of the rate you mentioned would already help me keep focus.
You need human review when working on anything not table stakes. You cannot write shitty code for an avionics package on an airplane under the assumption that if we encounter bugs, its no big deal because we can rewrite it super fast..
It seems like all these bullish takes on AI are coming from people who think all software runs in a browser, and simply exists to take stripe payments or serve ads. Most software is actually very high stakes and lives depend on it and have high compliance burdens.
Just because it can "one shot" (which actually means 90 tools calls and a whole lot of brute forcing against tests/linter/compiler, and possibly reward hacking) to something that runs, does not mean it will continue to run well.
People treat llm made software like disposable code. You're the only one using it, typically on a single machine with no real world multi-user testing, but for some reason we derive from the fact it worked well the 3 times we used it, on a single machine with a single user that it is evidence of llm solving programming. Its bogus.
And the dev, if they're sane, wants to actually evaluate what it's doing in those arenas. Speed might be a psychology killer then. Actually being able to see the development process as it does it's good think and it's wrong think is a benefit for local development.
I don't think speed of tokens is all that magical if there's a huge imbalance of ability to "human in the loop" it's processs.
You're larping too, can we bring NFTs back so the the dunning kruger vibe coder commenters on the internet find something else to fixate on?
2. Which nursery rhyme? The tortoise and the hare is a fable, not a nursery rhyme. Even if you think the lesson was “faster is not always better,” which it wasn’t, faster is sometimes better. And in particular, when a machine is involved, all things being equal, faster is better. Would you rather use a fast compiler or a slow compiler, all things being equal except cost to keep the analogy with the original? Compiler A produces the same binary with the same optimization levels a compiler B, but in 1/10th the time. Assuming you can afford it or someone above you in your organization is willing to buy it for you, you take compiler A. If you can’t afford it, you lust after it. Why, because a slow compiler results in a slow iteration loop no matter what. With an instantaneous compiler, the loop is as slow or fast as the human part of it. You want to think some more, rearchitect this or that? Fine. Your code is always ready to run.
I get the sense that you’re anti-AI. That’s fine. I’m not sold myself, though I’m increasingly trending that way. For those that choose to use AI, I submit that a fast AI, all things equal (same output), is better than a slow AI for the same reason that a fast compiler is more preferable. Note that I’m not saying that faster overall development at all costs is preferable, or that we should just throw everything at the AI and stop thinking.
a milisecond response, that you can then spend 30s focused on is better.
its the same as a build tool. just slow enough build tools really suck, compared to either an instant build or a 30min build
evaluating the areas isnt the same as watching the llm harnes say "thinking" between submitting a request and getting a response
But the opinion is about psychology and expectations.
If you expect the singularity, then of course this sounds crazy. To christians, ghosts also sound crazy. It dont mean a think if yoire biased to expect AGIM