upvote
I do not think it is so clear.

Programming has verifiable and non-verifiable aspects. Competitive programming, passing tests, and performance can all be verified. But translating English requirements into actual software, software architecture, taste, or UI design cannot. And yet over the last couple years we’ve seen huge lifts in all of these areas, not just the verifiable ones.

Verifiable areas I think are clearly seeing the most improvement, or are the quickest to see improvement. But we are seeing lots of progress in non-verifiable areas as well.

How much of the non-verifiable progress is a function of labs purchasing expert data vs. the models improving with compute is maybe another interesting question, but fundamentally I don’t see spend on expert data as something that can’t grow if AI revenues keep growing as well. And as models get better taste they can also help filter and generate new synthetic data for their next versions to train on. The limits of this approach are not so clear.

reply
> we’ve seen huge lifts in all of these areas, not just the verifiable ones.

most gains are still coming from data. isnt that supposed to 'run out' though?

reply
Labs spend billions hiring experts to generate new data, and better models can better filter existing training data and generate new synthetic data. There’s no reason for that to run out, it’s just expensive.

You could view this as just continually patching a leaky ship. But it seems to work.

reply
That is because there is human annotated data there. Every session you or I used, then of course paid human feedback on repos (such as the recently famous example of meta forcing their employees to).

This is _much better_ data than 1/0 verification, it is as good as a gradient.

Automatically verifiable tasks improve faster since well, its automated.

reply
deleted
reply