upvote
> there's no reason to believe the progress of LLMs [...] will stop anytime soon

Wrong. Every advancement has followed a s curve. Where we are on that curve is anyones guess. Or maybe "this time its different".

reply
There are advancements that do not follow s curves - consider for instance total data transmitted over all networks, or financial derivatives volumes.

I think a better question for AI is “is it more like a network effect, liquidity effect, or a biological/physical effect”?

reply
Those are measuring the utility of a technological advancement by looking at usage, not the pace of advancement of said technology.
reply
It can be S curve (and it almost surely is), but on every chart you can plot, you don't see even of an inkling of the bend yet.
reply
This could be right for the current architecture of LLMs, but you can come up with specialized large language models that can more efficiently use tokens for a specific subset of problems by encoding the information differently (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03214-7).

So if instead of text we come up with a different representation for mathematical or physical problems, that could both improve the quality of the output while reducing the amount of transformers needed for decoding and encoding IO and for internal reasoning.

There are also difference inference methods, like autoregressive and diffusion, and maybe others we haven't discovered yet.

You combine those variables, along with the internal disposition of layers, parameter size and the actual dataset, and you have such a large search space for different models that no one can reliably tell if LLM performance is going to flatline or continue to improve exponentially.

reply
It’s more of a guess if you don’t know about things like scaling laws and RL with verification. The onus of “we’re going to saturate” anytime soon is on that claim because every measurement points to that not being true.
reply
He said "will stop anytime soon". He didn't say forever.
reply
Which still makes no sense. There is the same chance we are flatlining now as that we are flatlining in e.g. 3 years or 5 years.
reply
In what sense are the models flatlining?
reply
In the sense that the incremental improvements in capabilities that we've been seeing in recent models seem to taking exponentially growing amounts of compute to achieve.
reply
Great. You see a shape in graphs. And that shape tells you that _at some unknown point in the future_ progress will slow (but likely not stop).

Now back to the point, what reason do you have to believe progress will stop soon? If you have no reason, then it sounds like you agree with OP.

Which makes the patronizing sarcasm all that much more nauseating.

reply
Deep think still makes many many many more mistakes than gpt 5.5 pro on math
reply
There are many indications that model progress is slowing down, so that is not entirely accurate.
reply
Please be specific because outside of anecdotal blog posts by people who don’t know what they’re talking about it’s not true. Look at scaling laws, composite benchmarks from the epoch capability index, nothing at all suggests “model progress is slowing down”
reply
Which indications are that?
reply
The cost factors on the new models compared to the old models.
reply
deleted
reply
Nobody is releasing NEW models
reply
…not only is this not true but it also doesn’t matter. Why would this indicate performance saturating?
reply
What constitutes a NEW model for the purposes of calculating progress?
reply
What? DeepSeekV3 just came out and is incredible for the price. Mythos is also half-released.
reply
The standard networking connection has been called “Ethernet” for more than thirty years, so networking has stagnated, right?
reply
If higher bandwidth networking consisted primarily running more and more ethernet lines in parallel, you would most certainly agree that "networking has stagnated".

"Reasoning" and now "Agentic" AI systems are not some fundamental improvement on LLMs, they're just running roughly the same prior-gen LLMS, multiple times.

Hence the conclusion that LLM improvement has slowed down, if not stagnated entirely, and that we should not expect the improvements of switching to these "reasoning" systems to keep happening.

reply
Investment dollars.
reply
Source for that claim?
reply