zlacker

>>simonw+(OP)
Indeed. I don't understand why Hacker News is so dismissive about the coming of LLMs, maybe HN readers are going through 5 stages of grief?

But LLM is certainly a game changer, I can see it delivering impact bigger than the internet itself. Both require a lot of investments.

>>didip+Th
> I don't understand why Hacker News is so dismissive about the coming of LLMs

I find LLMs incredibly useful, but if you were following along the last few years the promise was for “exponential progress” with a teaser world destroying super intelligence.

We objectively are not on that path. There is no “coming of LLMs”. We might get some incremental improvement, but we’re very clearly seeing sigmoid progress.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I’m tired of hyperbolic rants that are unquestionably not justified (the nice thing about exponential progress is you don’t need to argue about it)

>>crysta+fn
We're very clearly seeing exponential progress - even above trend, on METR, whose slope keeps getting revised to a higher and higher estimate each time. Explain your perspective on the objective evidence against exponential progress?

>>aoeusn+Io
Pretty neat how this exponential progress hasn't resulted in exponential productivity. Perhaps you could explain your perspective on that?

>>llmsla+Ar
It has! CLs/engineer increased by 10% this year.

LLMs from late 2024 were nearly worthless as coding agents, so given they have quadrupled in capability since then (exponential growth, btw), it's not surprising to see a modestly positive impact on SWE work.

Also, I'm noticing you're not explaining yourself :)

>>aoeusn+Ft
Hey, I'm not the OG commentator, why do I have to explain myself! :)

When Fernando Alonso (best rookie btw) goes from 0-60 in 2.4 seconds in his Aston Martin, is it reasonable to assume he will near the speed of light in 20 seconds?

>>llmsla+pv
> Hey, I'm not the OG commentator, why do I have to explain myself! :)

The issue is that you're not acknowledging or replying to people's explanations for _why_ they see this as exponential growth. It's almost as if you skimmed through the meat of the comment and then just re-phrased your original idea.

> When Fernando Alonso (best rookie btw) goes from 0-60 in 2.4 seconds in his Aston Martin, is it reasonable to assume he will near the speed of light in 20 seconds?

This comparison doesn't make sense because we know the limits of cars but we don't yet know the limits of LLMs. It's an open question. Whether or not an F1 engine can make it the speed of light in 20 seconds is not an open question.

>>lopati+BC
It's not in me to somehow disprove claims of exponential growth when there isn't even evidence provided of it.

My point with the F1 comparison is to say that a short period of rapid improvement doesn't imply exponential growth and it's about as weird to expect that as it is for an f1 car to reach the speed of light. It's possible you know, the regulations are changing for next season - if Leclerc sets a new lap record in Australia by .1 ms we can just assume exponential improvements and surely Ferrari will be lapping the rest of the field by the summer right?