Skip to content

Large Language Model Performance Doubles Every 7 Months

Technology
53 34 10
  • By 2030, AI will greatly outperform humans in some complex intellectual tasks. Discover how LLMs are doubling their capabilities every seven months.

    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.

  • By 2030, AI will greatly outperform humans in some complex intellectual tasks. Discover how LLMs are doubling their capabilities every seven months.

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

  • By 2030, AI will greatly outperform humans in some complex intellectual tasks. Discover how LLMs are doubling their capabilities every seven months.

    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.

  • By 2030, AI will greatly outperform humans in some complex intellectual tasks. Discover how LLMs are doubling their capabilities every seven months.

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

  • 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.

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

    and assuming that improvement doesn't plateau, ever,

  • 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!

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

    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.

  • 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.

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

    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."
    
  • This is like measuring the increasing speeds of cars in the early years and extrapolating that they would be supersonic by now by ignoring the exponential impact that air resistance has.

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

  • 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.

  • By 2030, AI will greatly outperform humans in some complex intellectual tasks. Discover how LLMs are doubling their capabilities every seven months.

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

  • By 2030, AI will greatly outperform humans in some complex intellectual tasks. Discover how LLMs are doubling their capabilities every seven months.

    new moore law dropped

  • 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.

    Yup, that's what I was alluding to, while it may not still be the case for transistors, they did manage to take 50 odd years to get there, push that trend line from the figure 50 years heh (not saying you should, 5 seems much more conservative)

    Take a look at Nvidias pace wrt Moore's law (of FLOPS) https://netrouting.com/nvidia-surpassing-moores-law-gpu-innovation/

  • 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.

  • 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."
    

    I like how it counted correctly and then gave an incorrect final answer.. Bravo 👏

  • 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

  • 168 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    K
    But but we need to power our virtual idiot with more energy than entire countries use :((
  • YouTube Will Add an AI Slop Button Thanks to Google’s Veo 3

    Technology technology
    71
    1
    339 Stimmen
    71 Beiträge
    180 Aufrufe
    anunusualrelic@lemmy.worldA
    "One slop please"
  • 2 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • How the US is turning into a mass techno-surveillance state

    Technology technology
    66
    1
    484 Stimmen
    66 Beiträge
    105 Aufrufe
    D
    Are these people retarded? Did they forget Edward Snowden?
  • 80 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    50 Aufrufe
    B
    Didn’t he pay a hitman to murder a couple of people?
  • Catbox.moe got screwed 😿

    Technology technology
    40
    55 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    47 Aufrufe
    archrecord@lemm.eeA
    I'll gladly give you a reason. I'm actually happy to articulate my stance on this, considering how much I tend to care about digital rights. Services that host files should not be held responsible for what users upload, unless: The service explicitly caters to illegal content by definition or practice (i.e. the if the website is literally titled uploadyourcsamhere[.]com then it's safe to assume they deliberately want to host illegal content) The service has a very easy mechanism to remove illegal content, either when asked, or through simple monitoring systems, but chooses not to do so (catbox does this, and quite quickly too) Because holding services responsible creates a whole host of negative effects. Here's some examples: Someone starts a CDN and some users upload CSAM. The creator of the CDN goes to jail now. Nobody ever wants to create a CDN because of the legal risk, and thus the only providers of CDNs become shady, expensive, anonymously-run services with no compliance mechanisms. You run a site that hosts images, and someone decides they want to harm you. They upload CSAM, then report the site to law enforcement. You go to jail. Anybody in the future who wants to run an image sharing site must now self-censor to try and not upset any human being that could be willing to harm them via their site. A social media site is hosting the posts and content of users. In order to be compliant and not go to jail, they must engage in extremely strict filtering, otherwise even one mistake could land them in jail. All users of the site are prohibited from posting any NSFW or even suggestive content, (including newsworthy media, such as an image of bodies in a warzone) and any violation leads to an instant ban, because any of those things could lead to a chance of actually illegal content being attached. This isn't just my opinion either. Digital rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation have talked at length about similar policies before. To quote them: "When social media platforms adopt heavy-handed moderation policies, the unintended consequences can be hard to predict. For example, Twitter’s policies on sexual material have resulted in posts on sexual health and condoms being taken down. YouTube’s bans on violent content have resulted in journalism on the Syrian war being pulled from the site. It can be tempting to attempt to “fix” certain attitudes and behaviors online by placing increased restrictions on users’ speech, but in practice, web platforms have had more success at silencing innocent people than at making online communities healthier." Now, to address the rest of your comment, since I don't just want to focus on the beginning: I think you have to actively moderate what is uploaded Catbox does, and as previously mentioned, often at a much higher rate than other services, and at a comparable rate to many services that have millions, if not billions of dollars in annual profits that could otherwise be spent on further moderation. there has to be swifter and stricter punishment for those that do upload things that are against TOS and/or illegal. The problem isn't necessarily the speed at which people can be reported and punished, but rather that the internet is fundamentally harder to track people on than real life. It's easy for cops to sit around at a spot they know someone will be physically distributing illegal content at in real life, but digitally, even if you can see the feed of all the information passing through the service, a VPN or Tor connection will anonymize your IP address in a manner that most police departments won't be able to track, and most three-letter agencies will simply have a relatively low success rate with. There's no good solution to this problem of identifying perpetrators, which is why platforms often focus on moderation over legal enforcement actions against users so frequently. It accomplishes the goal of preventing and removing the content without having to, for example, require every single user of the internet to scan an ID (and also magically prevent people from just stealing other people's access tokens and impersonating their ID) I do agree, however, that we should probably provide larger amounts of funding, training, and resources, to divisions who's sole goal is to go after online distribution of various illegal content, primarily that which harms children, because it's certainly still an issue of there being too many reports to go through, even if many of them will still lead to dead ends. I hope that explains why making file hosting services liable for user uploaded content probably isn't the best strategy. I hate to see people with good intentions support ideas that sound good in practice, but in the end just cause more untold harms, and I hope you can understand why I believe this to be the case.
  • Copy Table in Excel and Paste as a Markdown Table

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    23 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    15 Aufrufe
    ptz@dubvee.orgP
    That's based on https://github.com/jonmagic/copy-excel-paste-markdown Would be awesome to see some Lemmy clients incorporate that. I've had it requested but haven't had a chance to really dig into it yet.
  • How I use Mastodon in 2025 - fredrocha.net

    Technology technology
    11
    1
    0 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    24 Aufrufe
    J
    Sure. Efficiency isn't everything, though. At the end of the article there are a few people to get you started. Then you can go to your favorites in that list, and follow some of the people THEY are following. Rinse and repeat, follow boosted folks. You'll have 100 souls in no time.