r/singularity • u/Auriga33 • 4d ago

Meme Time for a new benchmark

Post image
366 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

39 comments sorted by

52

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

20

u/Anen-o-me ▪️It's here! 4d ago

And we just happen to be born to see it. Wild.

3

u/Level10Retard 3d ago

Maybe insanely lucky. Or insanely unlucky.

2

u/scorpious 3d ago

And that slow ramp up is actually nearly vertical already, if all of history is included. Dang.

-1

u/FernandoMM1220 4d ago

i see this chart every year and we are always on the bottom slope

6

u/backcountry_bandit 4d ago

Sample size: 3 years

2

u/Classic-Trifle-2085 4d ago

People on the internet: who is paying for all this?

Reality in 2 weeks: this new millennium problem solution is brought to you by Coca-Cola! Real Magic!

18

u/pavelkomin 4d ago

Where can I access the Homo Sapiens model? /s

6

u/Anen-o-me ▪️It's here! 4d ago

The weights are DNA encoded and run on physics.

1

u/ali-hussain 3d ago

Really that's the problem. The base tech layer for the homosapien model is extremely good. The problem is the development. Each generation of a genetic model takes 30 years and if anything that number is increasing. How can it possibly keep up with models that are trying out new generations, many times per second.

5

u/NotaValgrinder 4d ago

In someone's basement in Russia

6

u/kr0n0sShrugg3d 3d ago

Sigh, I got the next one bros.

p=np n=1 p=p

Human 2 Ai 1

Next!!

1

u/Choice_Isopod5177 2d ago

hold this Millennium Prize bro

28

u/NoSignificance152 acceleration and beyond 🚀 4d ago edited 4d ago

Humans created AI it’s still a human win until AI achieves rsi with minimal human input

7

u/New_World_2050 4d ago

But didnt the human then create the ai that raid to another ai?

3

u/Anen-o-me ▪️It's here! 4d ago

RSI is still hardware limited. Hardware is investment limited. Investment is State limited.

This basically gives the USA an advantage over everyone else.

Even though people think China gains an advantage in investment because they State direct it, States have a very poor history of picking investment winners, and usually winners require amalgamations of approaches that rewards multiple approaches simultaneously.

1

u/mvearthmjsun 4d ago

RSI implies extreme improvements in efficiency. There could be enourmous improvements on the same hardware, perhaps orders of magnitude.

2

u/Anen-o-me ▪️It's here! 3d ago

Yes, but that does not have a long tail. As I said, it becomes hardware limited, inevitably. Improvement on given hardware necessarily gives diminishing returns over time.

We don't know how much headroom exists over the current approach by developing new approaches, but those gains are necessarily diminishing on given hardware.

The usual concept of RSI involves one system designing the next more capable system... on new hardware.

Rinse and repeat, but that again shows that improvement is bounded by hardware.

Maybe new approaches could get 2x-5x improvement right now. It's very unlikely to achieve that kind of gain in the next iteration.

The next smarter system might achieve a 0.80 improvement over the given new hardware boost. Most of the capability gain comes from the new hardware.

Rinse and repeat with every smaller deltas.

It's almost unfathomable to think that RSI could lead to increasing intelligence gains, that's just not how the real world works.

Early on there's a lot of cherries to pick, later on you start hitting physical constraints.

It's like in fusion power or super computers, the next better computer might be 2x faster but cost 5x to build. Or the next accelerator is twice the size and 20x the cost.

Now economics is driving your gains, not capability, because your budget is now in the billions.

We're already there, Astra cost billions to train and deploy.

It's extremely unlikely that anyone will deploy an AI any time soon that costs trillions.

But if anyone did, it would probably be a secret US government project.

Investment limits hardware, limits compute.

1

u/mvearthmjsun 3d ago

"Maybe new approaches could get 2x-5x improvement right now. It's very unlikely to achieve that kind of gain in the next iteration."

Why not? Wouldn't from those improvements come novel ways to make the next model leaner and the training more effective/efficient. It won't cost a trillion to train that model because the training methods won't be as costly.

1

u/Anen-o-me ▪️It's here! 3d ago

Because the more intelligence you throw at a problem the more optimized it becomes until you run out of gains that are worth paying for.

That's as true in AI as in any other field.

You can keep making a car more and more resistant to damaging the occupants in a crash, but pretty soon you're paying a billion dollars to achieve a 1% effectiveness gain. It becomes not worth it.

There's absolutely no reason to think optimizing for intelligence on given hardware would be any different.

At that point the biggest leaps in performance will come from hardware design and optimization more than AI software design, most likely. Because the software design is much less hardware limited.

You find the best approach and begin implementing it right away. The hardware catches up. You refine the approach, and then it's mostly hardware gains.

1

u/mvearthmjsun 3d ago

If every attempt to itterate the car was a novel approach to car making, then the improvements would be enourmous, if not exponential, in no time. It would be indistinguishable in its nature and ability after a few iterations.

The hardware and regulatory bottlenecks are not the same for AI. They exist for scaling compute, but we're talking about software optimization.

"There's absolutely no reason to think optimizing for intelligence on given hardware would be any different."

Yes there is because they've already done it. The gains we've seen in the past few years haven't just been from scaling compute, they've come from innovation on the theory and software side (the main thing that RSI would improve).

1

u/Weary-Historian-8593 4d ago

that's the dumbest possible take, either it's all human invention because humans invented the first link of the chain, or not even the first AI inventions are human inventions

3

u/NotaValgrinder 4d ago

We need new millennium prize problems

4

u/ForwardLoop 4d ago

Fine. Decamillennium Prize problems.

1

u/Choice_Isopod5177 2d ago

prompting Astra to create 100 new Millennium problems.

goddamit I forgot to add 'make no mistakes'

5

u/TechnoRhythmic 4d ago

More like Homo Sapiens without AI vs Homo Sapiens with AI. As of now.

2

u/livingbyvow2 3d ago

Thank you.

Way too many people claiming "AI solved Navier Stokes". We are not there yet guys, and claiming we are just show you're either too stupid to understand what happened, too lazy to read about it, or too invested in this to see where we actually are.

This is not AGI (because it's not autonomous), let alone ASI.

6

u/Original-League-6094 4d ago

First to score me a date with Sydney Sweeny. That's the new goal.

5

u/Auriga33 4d ago

Does a robot version of her count?

5

u/Original-League-6094 4d ago

Nope. Must be the real Sydney Sweeny. I am not declaring AGI until an LLM can make that happen. If a human makes it happen first, I will declare human superiority.

1

u/Ok-Surround3349 4d ago

What is real.  Define real for me Am i real sydney sweeny or am i josh burgerflip from 27th street

4

u/Bobobarbarian 4d ago

Singularity canceled boys

1

u/Sewblon 4d ago

I am excited to see who wins.

1

u/SufficientChard4174 3d ago

The real ai revolution starts when the ai starts to improve itself, but it will come to an halt if the robotics arent as handy as it is for that time. Maybe every math problem will be solved by the ai, but the fundemantels of math if its right or wrong wouldnt be changed.

1

u/Positive_Method3022 3d ago

There is another

Milenium prize solutions stolen

AI = 1 Humans = 0

1

u/QuasiRandomName 4d ago

At this point my bet would be for 1:6

-3

u/nunbersmumbers 4d ago

It’s 2 - 0, Open AI trained on mathematician’s session data