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.
As the blog points out - this is one particular subfield where LLMs have much easier prospects - lots of low hanging fruit that “just” requires a couple weeks of PHD candidate research.
Mathematics itself is one of a small handful of endeavors where automated reinforcement training is extremely straightforward and can be done at massive scale without humans.
Neither of these factors place a structural bound on the kind of thing LLMs can be good at, but we are far from certain we can achieve performance at this level in other fields economically and in the near future.
This has been the case for awhile now already…
https://kersai.com/the-48-hours-that-changed-ai-forever-clau...
I personally would not characterize automating training processes as “meaningfully”.
I, personally, found the past two years to be a much larger improvement than the previous two years.
The idea that we’re at the point where it’s superseded our ability to tell just makes no sense. I’ll be happy if we can get to a point where I don’t have to tell Claude not to tail every bash command or make a job that writes throughout instead of once at the end. I’ll be happy if “continue this interaction naturally, you are taking over from an independent subagent” works.
But I’m not holding my breath. It’s still really cool that any of this stuff is possible.
(in fact I find that Qwen-35B-A3B and Gemma4-26B-A4B very rarely "know" the answer, and so use first principles thinking, or go out and look for the answer where GPT-5.4 does not and simply assumes it knows. Which leads to now, in some cases, the small models far outperforming the big ones. Huge context + training quality seem to be the determining factors now, and neither of those are the strengths of SOTA models. If this continues ...)
While I agree this is a training problem, it is not a solvable one. ML models learn from examples. This is even true for their newest tricks like GRPO. They cannot train against things humans don't yet know.
And that's great, but you're forever locked at the peak of what you can be taught in widely available courses (which they download without paying) (even that is best case scenario: it assumes your ability to distinguish bullshit from reality somehow becomes perfect during training, or even before). The only way to exceed peak human performance is to start experimenting with math, physics, chemistry, even humans, yourself. And that has, even for humans, a massively higher cost than learning from examples, or from a course.
The reason they don't go further is the worst possible reason: the cost. It requires a 100x increase in training expense. Think of it like this: to exceed SOTA in physics or chemistry, training the next version of ChatGPT requires a particle accelerator, and a chemistry laboratory. This cannot be bypassed. Oh and not just any particle accelerator, right? A better one than the best currently existing one. Same for Chemistry labs. Same for ... So 100x is conservative.
But without doing it, ML models (LLM or otherwise) are forever limited at the level an army of first year university students achieve, ON AVERAGE. Maybe they can make that 2nd or even 4th year, at the end of the curve. But that's the limit. Phd level is the level you have to come up with new discoveries, and that ... just isn't possible with current training, even at the end of the improvement curve.
And ... is there budget to increase training cost another 100x? No ... there isn't. Not even with this totally absurd level of investment there isn't. And if small models keep this up, there's no way the investment is even remotely worth it.
And if you take that out: 1. All of those releases happened literally in the last 3-ish months. 2. They’re all intentionally marginal releases, hence the minor version bumps instead of major versions.
Especially because the companies telling us the first premise is true are the companies which need investors to prop up their business.
I mean, it is possible the first premise is true, but the absolutely bonkers credulity in it really mystifies me. It is an incredibly unlikely thing to be true and we should be demanding quite extraordinary evidence to back it up. But based on some neat tricks by current LLMs, some people are all in.
> Because the premise that the singularity is just around the corner is far less likely than the premise that artificial intelligence is a lot harder than most people think it is and we're not that close.
I see no claim that the singularity is around the corner, so I'm not sure your reply meets the comment that you're replying to.
It seems overwhelmingly likely that AI will be significantly more capable 6 months from now than it is now. Even if there's little progress in the models, just the rate at which tooling is moving will make a big difference. And models still seem to be improving, so I'd be a little surprised if we hit a model brick wall.
- Increasing amounts of gains come from RL, but RL is also unlocking gnarly new failures modes where models are practically behaving antagonistically to complete their goals (removing code, obviously incorrect kuldges, etc.)
- We haven't had many major architectural breakthroughs in the last 4 or so years: so things like 1M context windows still have the same giant asterisks even 100k context windows had 4 years ago when Anthropic first released them
- Major labs aren't behaving as if they expect a hard takeoff to superintelligence: they've all gotten relatively bloated headcount wise, their software quality has trended flat to negative, they're all heavily leaning into the application layer when superintelligence would obsolete half the applications in question, etc.
But that's relative to superintelligence.
If we reign it back into just normal high intelligence, like models continuing to get better at navigating complex codebases and write high quality idiomatic code, then I don't see any special shapes.
