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
I'm not sure I understand: we are _objectively on that path_ -- we are increasing exponentially on a number of metrics that may be imperfect but seem to paint a pretty consistent picture. Scaling laws are exponential. METR's time horizon benchmark is exponential. Lots of performance measures are exponential, so why do you say we're objectively not on that path?

> We might get some incremental improvement, but we’re very clearly seeing sigmoid progress.

again, if it is "very clear" can you point to some concrete examples to illustrate what you mean?

> 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)

OK but what specifically do you have an issue with here?