5 ms·

No, but I am suggesting that OpenAI and Anthropic are further down the RSI path than any of the other companies, as we can see from the model that solved Navier

No, but I am suggesting that OpenAI and Anthropic are further down the RSI path than any of the other companies, as we can see from the model that solved Navier-Stokes being less than two weeks old at the time: https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution/ https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution/

sdenton4 4d ago
If four other labs are six months behind, it really doesn't matter in the long term: in six months, they'll all have these capabilities. Time does not stop moving forward! We haven't seen real moats aside from capital in this space, and even the effect of capital seems to only give a thin, easily eroded edge.
- snovv_crash 4d ago
  I think the point is that RSI is meant to lead to exponential growth in capabilities. If that comes, then being 6 months behind leads to a greater and greater gap, because of how exponential growth works. Personally I expect there is some initial gap on new capabilities as they are released, and then it closes quickly. Astra is good at math and 3d modelling, this will come soon to the others and in 6 months we'll be able to run it quantised on a 3090.
  - ilyaizen 4d ago
    [dead]
  - hiddencost 4d ago
    I don't know why everyone assumes RSI will be quadratic or exponential growth. It might well be sublinear, but just faster than humans. Most problems in science face severe diminishing returns.
    - brainwad 4d ago
      Human growth has already been exponential, so it seems absurd to assume it would be only polynomial.
qup 4d ago
There's a Twitter rumor that deepmind achieved RSI very recently. Either way, to count Google out entirely is really foolish.
- dinfinity 3d ago
  Or the entirety of China. People forget that progress is incremental until it's not. Then some revolutionary insight or capability comes along that disrupts the whole field or market. Yes, labs with more (human) resources may have a bigger chance at being the first to gain and implement such an insight, but it's not a given that they will.

sdenton4 4d ago

If four other labs are six months behind, it really doesn't matter in the long term: in six months, they'll all have these capabilities. Time does not stop moving forward! We haven't seen real moats aside from capital in this space, and even the effect of capital seems to only give a thin, easily eroded edge.

snovv_crash 4d ago
I think the point is that RSI is meant to lead to exponential growth in capabilities. If that comes, then being 6 months behind leads to a greater and greater gap, because of how exponential growth works. Personally I expect there is some initial gap on new capabilities as they are released, and then it closes quickly. Astra is good at math and 3d modelling, this will come soon to the others and in 6 months we'll be able to run it quantised on a 3090.
- ilyaizen 4d ago
  [dead]
- hiddencost 4d ago
  I don't know why everyone assumes RSI will be quadratic or exponential growth. It might well be sublinear, but just faster than humans. Most problems in science face severe diminishing returns.
  - brainwad 4d ago
    Human growth has already been exponential, so it seems absurd to assume it would be only polynomial.

qup 4d ago

There's a Twitter rumor that deepmind achieved RSI very recently. Either way, to count Google out entirely is really foolish.

dinfinity 3d ago
Or the entirety of China. People forget that progress is incremental until it's not. Then some revolutionary insight or capability comes along that disrupts the whole field or market. Yes, labs with more (human) resources may have a bigger chance at being the first to gain and implement such an insight, but it's not a given that they will.