this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
45 points (88.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

34964 readers
530 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
45
Moore’s Law for AI. Is there such a thing? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit (IC) doubles about every two years.

Is there anything similar for the sophistication of AI, or AGI in particular?

all 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Some in the AI industry have proposed concepts similar to Moore's Law to describe the rapid growth of AI capabilities.

Although there is no universally accepted law or principle akin to Moore's Law for AI, people often refer to trends that describe the doubling of model sizes or capabilities over a specific time frame.

For instance, OpenAI has previously described a trend where the amount of computing power used to train the largest AI models has been doubling roughly every 3.5 months since 2012.

Source

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Thank you!

But does that equate to the power of AI doubling every 3.5 months?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

I guess it's hard to measure the power of AI anyway but I would say a strong no: it doesn't equate to the power of AI doubling every 3.5 months 😅

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Personally I don't believe we've had the technology long enough to make such a prediction.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

There isn't really a way of quantifying the "sophistication" of AI

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We’ve reached far beyond practical necessity in model sizes for Moore’s Law to apply there. That is, model sizes have become so huge that they are performing at 99% of the capability they ever will be able to.

Context size however, has a lot farther to go. You can think of context size as “working memory” where model sizes are more akin to “long term memory”. The larger the context size, the more a model is able to understand beyond the scope of it’s original model training in one go.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That is a pretty wild assumption. There's absolutely no reason, why a larger model wouldn't produce drastically better results. Maybe not next month, maybe not with this architecture, but it's almost certain that they will grow.

This has hard "256kb is enough" vibes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What drastically better results are you thinking of?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actual understanding of the prompts, for example? LLMs are just text generators, they have no concepts of what's being the words.

Thing is, you seem to be completely uncreative or rather deny the designers and developers any creativity if you just assume "now we're done". Would you have thought the same about Siri ten years ago? "Well, it understands that I'm planning a meeting, AI is done."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I see your point. Rereading the OP, it looks like I jumped to a conclusion about LLMs and not AI in general.

My takeaway still stands for LLMs. These models have gotten huge with little net gain on each increase. But a Moore’s Law equivalent should apply to context sizes. That has a long way to go.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

The advancements in this space have moved so fast, it's hard to extract a predictive model on where we'll end up and how fast it'll get there.

Meta releasing LLaMA produced a ton of innovation from open source that showed you could run models that were nearly the same level as ChatGPT with less parameters, on smaller and smaller hardware. At the same time, almost every large company you can think of has prioritized integrating generative AI as a high strategic priority with blank cheque budgets. Whole industries (also deeply funded) are popping up around solving the context window memory deficiencies, prompt stuffing for better steerability, better summarization and embedding of your personal or corporate data.

We're going to see LLM tech everywhere in everything, even if it makes no sense and becomes annoying. After a few years, maybe it'll seem normal to have a conversation with your shoes?