← Back to context

Comment by therein

6 hours ago

Extreme speeds are actually interesting if you think about it. We are apparently getting some interesting results from LLMs nowadays. If they would put 100x effort in 10% the time it takes, or imagine 1% where how long tool calls take become the bottleneck, that would actually probably feel like a really special kind of "super intelligence".

It would absolutely be a phase change in practical utility, but it still wouldn't be "super intelligence".

  • I think that just like there's tons of different kind of "superheroes" and nobody disputes whether they're genuinely deserving of the name or not, there could be many valid types of super intelligence.

    If something is roughly as intelligent as a normal human expert in a given area, but 100 times faster, that would be a valid example of super intelligence.

    I'm sure that by some definitions like this we've already discovered narrow super intelligence.

    For example - breadth of knowledge. Is knowledge a kind of intelligence? If so then current agents absolutely have a breadth of knowledge which is superhuman.

    • Or you'd just be making the same mistakes experts do but at a 100x clip.

      Tortious really does win the race, and there is no such thing as a free lunch.

  • It would be a super intelligence in terms of thinking speed, not necessarily be super intelligent, mind you.

More like lighting a fire in your codebase at the speed of light.

Nobody needs this, and the quality of models they're deploying, or all llms for that matter, require heavy human review (if you care at all about maintainability).

One developer can barely keep up with the daily output of multiple llm sessions writing code at 50 tps.

Im convinced anyone confidently thinking 2k tps is a no brainer is probably not concerned about the quality of their work (many such cases).

  • Occasionally it takes me at most 10 minutes to figure out that a solution the LLM took an hour to churn out is not up to par and I need to throw it away entirely.

    There are diminishing returns, but half of the rate you mentioned would already help me keep focus.

  • At those token rates you could treat the LLM as a compiler and rebuild your software from scratch every week. That would mean the end for AI slop because people who spend the effort to build a process that creates high quality software from scratch can take full advantage of the one shot performance of an LLM without having to release the process itself.

This is why I think there will be selective pressure for fast tools. It’s like an evolutionary process and fast tools will be preferred and created. It’s already happening and also why I think computer use is a dead end.