Only if people give up on the whole concept by then. Each new generation of AI model takes more energy than the last.

That's what you get when the "research" for the article is AI generated.

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.

Moore's law hasn't been exponential for ~15 years now.

and I can easily check it was completed correctly

Can you always though?

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.

They need to invent an inquiring-gpt or Q-GPT. Otherwise they'll need humans to do the digging.

Classic pseudo-science for the modern grifter. Vague definitions, sloppy measurements, extremely biased, wild unsupported predictions, etc.

It's outperforming "messier" problems with a much lower success rate.

when will they be able to tell me how many 'r's are in 'strawberry' in under 1s?

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.

and assuming that improvement doesn't plateau, ever,

time for them to set sail to the wild seas again!

If you are just talking transitor density I believe it still is, but even if not, my point was that it had exponential growth spanning over many decades.

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.

Deepseek-r1:1.5b

::: spoiler 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."

Or like looking at the early days of semiconductors and extrapolating that CPU speed will double every 18 months ..smh these people

Since CPU speeds are still doubling every 18 months you have a solid point!

Or maybe not since you are probably referring to the doubling of transistors that was an observation which was accurate over a lengthy period of time in the context of when the observation was made. Nobody said that would continue indefinitely either.

Someone doesn't know the folly of extending straight lines graphs into the future.

new moore law dropped