they are improving at an exponential rate. It's just that the exponent is less than one.
Technology
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
new moore law dropped
Someone doesn't know the folly of extending straight lines graphs into the future.
Oof, the alt text on that second one was unexpectedly dark lmao
when will they be able to tell me how many 'r's are in 'strawberry' in under 1s?
Deepseek-r1:1.5b
Thinking
Thinking...
Alright, so I'm trying to figure out how many 'r's are in the word "strawberry." Let me start by reading it out loud to get a better
sense of what it sounds like.
S-T-R-A-W-B-E-R-R-Y
Okay, let's break this down letter by letter. The first letter is S, then T, R, A, W, B, E, and two R's at the end.
So far, I've got one 'R' in the third position after S-T- and before A-W-B-E-R-R-Y.
Wait a minute, there are two R's in "strawberry." So that means there are two instances of the letter 'r' in the word. Is that all?
Let me double-check to make sure I'm not missing any other 'r's. Scanning through each letter again:
1. S - No
2. T - No
3. R - Yes, one R here.
4. A - No
5. W - No
6. B - No
7. E - No
8. R - Second R
9. R - Third R
Wait, am I counting correctly? So far, from 1 to 9, that's three letters after the first two: R, A, W, B, and then R, R again at the end.
Hold on, maybe I should visualize it like this:
S T R A W B E R R Y
So positions:
1. S
2. T
3. R (position 3)
4. A
5. W
6. B
7. E
8. R (position 8)
9. R (position 9)
And then the word ends with 'Y.'
Hmm, so only two 'R's in total? Let me confirm:
Looking back: positions 3 and 8 and 9.
Wait, that makes three 'R's. Did I miss one?
Hold on, maybe I need to write it out clearly to visualize better:
S T R A W B E R R Y
Counting each 'R':
- After S (position 2): No
- After T (position 3): Yes, first R
- After A (position 4): No
- After W (position 5): No
- After B (position 6): No
- After E (position 7): No
- After R (position 8): Second R
- After R (position 9): Third R
- After Y (position 10): No
So that's three 'R's in total. Did I count right? Maybe I should write it down step by step to ensure accuracy.
Alternatively, maybe there are only two 'R's because the 'Y' is considered separate from the R. But logically, even if Y has a vowel
sound, 'r' still counts separately unless specified otherwise.
Wait, actually, in English letters, 'Y' isn't really pronounced like an 'R.' It sounds more like a consonant. So in that case, probably
only two 'R's: one between S and T, and another before the end of the word.
But I'm still confused because when I count, I sometimes make mistakes. Maybe using an alphabet list or a counting tool would help.
Let me write down each letter with its position:
1. S
2. T
3. R (count 1)
4. A
5. W
6. B
7. E
8. R (count 2)
9. R (count 3)
10. Y
So that's three 'R's in total.
Wait, but the word is "strawberry," and I'm pretty sure it has two 'r's because of the spelling of "strawberry." Maybe the counting
matches that.
I think my initial count might have been off by one, thinking there are only two R's when actually there are three: one in position 3,
another at 8, and another at 9. But given that Y isn't pronounced like an 'R,' it's more accurate to say there are two 'r's.
Hmm, maybe I need to consider the pronunciation of each letter as well. Even though 'Y' is a consonant, sometimes people might play
around with silent letters or other pronunciation rules. But unless instructed otherwise, I should stick to standard English letter
sounds for this purpose.
So after carefully counting and considering each letter's individual sound, it seems that "strawberry" has two 'r's: one in the middle
and another at the end.
...done thinking.
To determine how many 'r's are in the word "strawberry," we can break it down letter by letter:
1. **S** - No
2. **T** - No
3. **R** (count 1)
4. **A** - No
5. **W** - No
6. **B** - No
7. **E** - No
8. **R** (count 2)
9. **R** (count 3)
10. **Y** - No
However, considering the pronunciation of each letter and standard English rules, even though 'Y' is a consonant, it's more accurate to
say that "strawberry" contains only two 'r's: one in position 3 and another at position 9.
Final Answer: There are two 'r's in the word "strawberry."
I like how it counted correctly and then gave an incorrect final answer.. Bravo 👏
Classic pseudo-science for the modern grifter. Vague definitions, sloppy measurements, extremely biased, wild unsupported predictions, etc.
That graph is hilarious. Enormous error bars, totally arbitrary quantization of complexity, and it's title? "Task time for a human that an AI model completes with a 50 percent success rate". 50 percent success is useless, lmao.
On a more sober note, I'm very disappointed that IEEE is publishing this kind of trash.
in yes/no type questions, 50% success rate is the absolute worst one can do. Any worse and you're just giving an inverted correct answer more than half the time
and assuming that improvement doesn't plateau, ever,
They need to invent an inquiring-gpt or Q-GPT. Otherwise they'll need humans to do the digging.
I very much like those huge generalizations in AI articles that makes you small and stupid. Those generalizations proves nothing but they sound like something big is coming. It's parody. How long we see them before people wake up ? Just wait 2 more years and AI will be better bro. You're not using AI properly, you need to learn how to use AI bro. You need to use different model for this task bro. Just pay for corporate products bro. Amount of junk of top of this pile of shit is amusing.
Because so much money has been thrown at it, for startups, for power generation, for investors, that this is little more than marketing for retail investors to buy into.
That's no doubt that they pour money to machines instead of people. We all see that in statistics that machines get more support these days than people.
I saw something once that explained how you can have an ai trained on a set of soccer games and have it generate soccer games as a use for it.
The idea is that the model has compressed all the soccer games into a smaller data size form than the total of having let's say 100+ games on video or whatever.
That's the real utility I see in generative ai that I know can keep going basically as long as we want to.
So only 10 years until it isn't a ressource hog anymore...
Only if people give up on the whole concept by then. Each new generation of AI model takes more energy than the last.
Then why do I feel like it's programming abilites are getting worse? I've stopped paying for it now because it causes more frustration than anything else. Works for simple "how can I simplyfi this code" queries when my head hurts, but that's about it.
Is it just me, or is this graph (first graph in the article) completely unintelligible?
The X-axis being time is self-explanatory, but the Y-axis is somehow exponential time but then also mapping random milestones of performance, meaning those milestones are hard-linked to that time-based Y-axis? What?
That's what you get when the "research" for the article is AI generated.
Yawn...
How is completely fucking up literally 50% of the time outperforming exactly???
It's outperforming "messier" problems with a much lower success rate.
You see, in 7 months, they'll fuck up literally 100% of the time! Progress.
It would be even better but unfortunately you can't exceed 100% wrong.
Wait, maybe you can, let me check the AI!
This is such bullshit. Models have already consumed all available data and have nothing left to consume, whole needing exponentially more data for progressive advancements
time for them to set sail to the wild seas again!
This. It's the old "to the moon" mentality.
If my 2yo continues to grow at the current rate, we'll have to buy new doors soon becouse at age 10 the kid will be the tallest person on Earth.
Apparently, throwing more data at it will not help much from now on... But anyway what they're saying, I can't trust the snake oil seller, he is suspicious...
2 X 0 = 0
Is the performance increase related to computing power? I suspect the undelying massive datacenters running the cloud based LLMs are expanding at a similar rate...