They've been around for years now. Obviously not as long as the others, but years nonetheless. What makes you think the years so far may not continue into the future?

The only pattern I can see is it being potentially unsustainable, but I find it hard to believe that, considering I can run an LLM that is more capable that SOTA from 2 years ago on a single box in my living room.

> What makes you think the years so far may not continue into the future?

The same thing that makes me think that it could: I do not have a crystal ball.

It's a simple test. Have patience. With your tone, even if you are right and it stands the test of time, you will look like a tool.

It's those with your attitude, in a state of constant smug denial, who look like tools right now. We'll see how it goes in a few years, but I doubt that will change. The constant goalpost-shifting as LLMs keep getting better and better is becoming embarrassing, and even if they stopped getting better from now on, which is certainly not the case, their impact on communications is on the same order of magnitude as that of the WWW. The curmudgeons I work with are too stubborn to realize that LLMs have moved past GPT-3, and most of the haters on HN sound the same.

I am ok looking like a tool right now.

That is the goal of a hype trend. To make even healthy skeptics feel like they are missing a great thing.

I am actually an early adopter though. I just don't like bragging around.

Researchers know that most "goal posts moved" are actually great challenges. It would be sad if they saw it as pessimism.

Think of it as a more creative way to engage in the hype.

Skeptics are more valuable than blind believers. You want a blind believer testing your airbag or a skeptic that will move some goal posts to try and sniff out any bugs?

> A simple test that cannot be rushed by more datacenters.

So you're saying we need more datacenters ~ Jensen Huang, probably

GPUs might actually make the list before LLMs.

One could argue that it is the fourth item on that list, since it is a technology that is standing for a long time by now.

There are so many items I'd put on the list before LLMs tbh. It's not even worth the time having the conversation. My quality of life went up much more in the dial up to dsl transition. I wouldn't say DSL to fibre was as much of a jump, e.g.

Anywho, that quality of life jump to DSL ultimately led to the enshitification of the internet I knew and loved and now I'm stuck talking about LLMs I wish didn't exist - I would trade the conveniences of today for the internet of the 2000s any day. I genuinely view us on a downwards QOL trajectory re: technology, even if it feels more novel and useful in the moment. Every new novelty in tech that makes life easier for us seems to actually further degraded the human experience of the internet. I don't know how to reconcile this trend with LLMs as being "great".

It really feels like the more we do "good" to "progress" information technology breakthroughs, the worse the entire field feels. Much shallower, less personal, and dumber.

Sorry for the rant.

To define what a breakthrough is, is hard.

A "gaming PC" defines how GPUs are important. General people know something there ticks different, specialists know, industries know. It matters. It matters for a long time now.

"Broadband" was a hype, temporary. Once people understood that the speed is the thing, not any name, it stopped mattering. Now every couple of years there's a mini "new broadband tech" but it's all the same. Of course the tech is important. But revolutionary? I don't know. It boils down to being what is defined as generally "the internet".

I think the easiest way to define it would be to take it a way for a bit and see how the world changes.

If we sent people back to dial up, the world would probably stop working.

If we took away LLMs, GPUs, the base world will probably keep chugging along outside of financial markets. Just IMO.

when dial up was initially the new thing you could also take that away and the world would keep chugging, same for phone lines, same for electricity. but you take away something the world has had time to become dependent on and suddenly the world has a harder time.

The worlds dependency on LLM tools just hasnt had time to develop and that doesnt mean it wont. most people here are likely on the bleeding edge of utilizing them. most people not paying attention will just use it like they use google or not at all, until tools are built and they dont even realize they are using an LLM, or using a service that is dependent on an LLM.

Most people here, unless researchers actually browse HN (unlikely, that would be a dumb move), are equivalent to notepad bleeding edge users in regards to LLMs.

If you don't train LLMs, you are just an user. I am sorry, that is the reality and it is cruel (for now).

If "prompt engineering" becomes a thing, it means the tech is less impressive than it declares itself to be.

It should be a natural language based interface. I will trust it and learn natural language instead, worst thing that can happen is I learn to communicate better (actually a good thing).

Take it away, leave it. Does it really matter in the context I presented?

you are going straight down from researchers building the LLMs to prompt engineers.. and there is a massive gap in the middle which is what i was speaking about. When i refer to tools that utilize LLMs, im not referring to tools built USING an llm to create it. im referring to tools which will serve a product which itself utilizes the LLM.

to use the same past example as simply as possible, computers utilize electricity. in this case LLMs would be the electricity. (this isnt me saying LLMs are as revolutionary as electricity, just trying to make a very clear example)

So, the test of time then? Sounds good to me!

Hey, COBOL stood the test of time. In software, it was revolutionary.