logoalt Hacker News

datsci_est_2015last Tuesday at 9:01 AM9 repliesview on HN

I’ve seen this style of take so much that I’m dying for someone to name a logical fallacy for it, like “appeal to progress” or something.

Step away from LLMs for a second and recognize that “Yesterday it was X, so today it must be X+1” is such a naive take and obviously something that humans so easily fall into a trap of believing (see: flying cars).


Replies

Gareth321last Tuesday at 10:23 AM

In finance we say "past performance does not guarantee future returns." Not because we don't believe that, statistically, returns will continue to grow at x rate, but because there is a chance that they won't. The reality bias is actually in favour of these getting better faster, but there is a chance they do not.

show 1 reply
andrewflnryesterday at 2:18 AM

Even more insane than assuming the trend will continue is assuming it will not continue. We don't know for sure (especially not by pure reason), but the weight of probability sure seems to lean one direction.

mikkupikkulast Tuesday at 1:38 PM

Logical fallacies are vastly overrated. Unless the conversation is formal logic in the first place, "logical fallacies" are just a way to apply quick pattern matching to dismiss people without spending time on more substantive responses. In this case, both you and the other are speculating about the near future of a thing, neither of you knows.

show 2 replies
aspenmartinlast Tuesday at 4:50 PM

Hmm...the sun comes up today is a pretty good bet that the sun comes up tomorrow.

We have robust scaling laws that continue to hold at the largest scales. It is absolutely a very safe bet that more compute + more training + algorithmic improvements will certainly improve performance it's not like we're rolling a 1 trillion dollar die.

famouswaffleslast Tuesday at 1:24 PM

Well if people give the exact same 'reasons' why it could not do x task in the past that it did manage to do then it is tiring seeing the same nonsense again. The reason here does not even make much sense. This result is not easily verifiable math.

torginuslast Tuesday at 1:09 PM

Yeah, and even if we accept that models are improving in every possible way, going from this to 'AI is exponential, singularity etc.' is just as large a leap.

tim333last Tuesday at 4:12 PM

The comment doesn't say it must be X+1. It implies it will improve which I would say is a pretty safe bet.

botroyesterday at 2:06 PM

How about 'slippery incline'?