zlacker

>>tablet+(OP)
I find the Konwinski Prize to be very interesting in this context. 1 million dollars to whoever's open source LLM solves >90% of a set of novel Github issues.

https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/konwinski-prize/

Currently, the #1 spot sits at a score of 0.09, not 0.9. A far cry from being useful. I know that open source models are not as good as closed source, but still, we're a long way from LLMs being good for code on their own.

And that supports OP's point - these tools aren't AGI, they produce trash that needs evaluation, but they're still useful.

>>a_bono+vq
> Currently, the #1 spot sits at a score of 0.09, not 0.9. A far cry from being useful.

The best intellisense and code completion tools would solve 0.00. Those were the only tools we were using just a couple of years ago. 0.09 is a tremendous jump and the improvements will accelerate!

>>naaski+vG
Assuming acceleration or even continued improvement is pretty naive.

>>kortil+3I
You mean assuming technology improves, which it has for centuries and given there is considerable incentive for it to improve, is naive? Seems inevitable.

Do you think humans have achieved peak intelligence? If so, why, and if not, then why shouldn't you expect artificial forms of intelligence to improve up to and even surpass humans abilities at some point?

Edit: to clarify, I'm not necessarily assuming unbounded acceleration, but tools always start out middling, improvements accelerate as we figure out what works and what doesn't, and then they taper off. We're just starting on the acceleration curve for AI.