alt Hacker News> There’s no reason to think this.
There are lots of good reasons to think this.
The first is that LLMs used to be bad at each of these nerd things, then toppled them like dominos. There's a pattern over time.
Another reason to think this is g. Across every known measurement, human (and animal) intelligence is convergent. Being better at one thing correlates with being better at another thing. Although the reason is not perfectly clear, the pattern is well established, and seems to apply to LLMs too - GPT-6 is smarter than GPT-3 at everything, not just math. There's no reason to expect different for GPT-9.
Replies
I’m not sure I agree that g explains all model capabilities. I think “claudespeak” is a consequence of the shift from training on RLHF to training on verifiable rewards. Thus the models seem to become worse at storytelling, fiction, readability, not better.
Even if we do accept that models have some “g” and that it correlates with all domains, there’s no reason to think that the current trajectory of LLM intelligence will grow more quickly or even as quickly. In every other technology we have an early period of slow growth during experimentation, and then a rapid period of growth, and then stagnation.
For all we know, 2026 could be the year of stagnation. It’s possible that we will reach finishing returns. If thats true, then it won’t matter how much that task correlates with overall g, because g won’t be increasing that much.
There was a time when people believed in Moore's law too. Now even Jensen Huang says Moore's law is dead. There's also the adage from investing: past performance does not guarantee future returns. A little CYA sure, but also acknowledgement of latent factors and the entropy of the universe and its affect on any predictive modelling one might do.
I don't agree that they get uniformly better at everything, especially subjective skills.
For example, they have become more and more unintelligible when you ask for explanations or descriptive text. They assume you see the same context as them and shortcut explanations.
I've had to craft a skill to get them to produce remotely understandable explanations of even mildly complex/non-mainstream subjects.
This may be Curse of Knowledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge on their part, and it also impacts human experts but still. Becoming better at one thing does not mean you become better at everything else, although I do agree with you that the better they become the more things there are they become good at, but their ability is still quite jagged and maybe increasingly so.
> Across every known measurement, human (and animal) intelligence is convergent. Being better at one thing correlates with being better at another thing.
LOL. Human (and animal!) intelligence is notoriously jagged. We're all basically idiots except for very narrow areas where we focus.
That's just cocktail party level of thinking. LLMs are getting better at math, code and logic (and marginally better at science and general knowledge) because these are domains that can be objectively verified and thus there is a potentially infinite supply of 'facts' to generate and train on. These are very powerful but ultimately very abstract domains. For everything else the messy real world and its physical bottlenecks gets in the way and there's little reason to expect progress to accelerate. It still takes months to get mice to reproduce and run experiments on, no matter how knowledgeable about biology the models have become.
If anything, in some domains frontier models have become worse - claudisms and chatgpt idioms are making them notoriously bad at prose without a considerable amount of prompting and tweaking.