= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on The Curve of Capability - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (264)
I think I read that, too, and the claimed improvement was 20% with each doubling.
That would look linear on a log-log graph. A power-law response.
I understood rwallace to be hawking a "curve of capability" which looks linear on a semi-log graph. A logarithmic response.
Of course, one of the problems with rwallace's hypothesis is that it becomes vague when you try to quantify it. "Capability increases by the same amount with each doubling of resources" can be interpreted in two ways. "Same amount" meaning "same percentage", or meaning literally "same amount".
Right, to clarify, I'm saying the curve of capability is a straight line on a log-log graph, perhaps the clearest example being the one I gave of chip design, which gives repeated doublings of output for doublings of input. I'm arguing against the "AI foom" notion of faster growth than that, e.g. each doubling taking half the time of the previous one.
So this could be falsified by continous capability curves that curve upwards on a log-log graphs, and you arguments in various other threads that the discussed situations result in continous capability curves are not strong enough to support your theory.