zlacker

>>laiysb+(OP)
With how stochastic the process is it makes it basically unusable for any large scale task. What's the plan? To roll the dice until the answer pops up? That would be maybe viable if there was a way to automatically evaluate it 100% but with a human in the loop required it becomes untenable.

>>margor+72
The plan is to improve AI agents from their current ~intern level to a level of a good engineer.

>>eterev+J2
Seems like that is taking a very long time, on top of some very grandiose promises being delivered today.

>>ethano+l3
I look back over the past 2-3 years and am pretty amazed with how quick change and progress have been made. The promises are indeed large but the speed of progress has been fast. Not defending the promise but “taking a very long time” does not seem to be an accurate representation.

>>infect+K5
I guess it probably depends on what you are doing. Outside of layers on top of these things (tooling), I personally haven't seen much progress.

>>ethano+t6
What a time we live in. I guess it depends how pessimistic you are.

>>infect+F8
To their point, there hasn’t been any huge breakthrough in this field since the “attention is all you need” paper. Not really any major improvements to model architecture, as far as I am aware. (Admittedly, this is a new field of study to me.) I believe one hope is to develop better methods for self-supervised learning; I am not sure of the progress there. Most practical improvements have been on the hardware and tooling side (GPUs and, e.g., pytorch).

Don’t get me wrong: the current models are already powerful and useful. However, there is still a lot of reason to remain skeptical of an imminent explosion in intelligence from these models.