carlita_express

> (Or at least because O(log) increases in model performance became unreasonably costly?)

But, yes, I left implicit in my comment that the trend might be “fleeting” because of its impracticality. RL is only a trend so long as it is fashionable, and only fashionable (i.e., practical) so long as OpenAI is fed an exponential amount of VC money to ensure linear improvements under O(log) conditions.

OpenAI is selling to VCs the idea that some hitherto unspecified amount of linear model improvement will kick off productivity gains greater than their exponentially increasing investment. These productivity gains would be no less than a sizeable percentage of American GDP, which Altman has publicly set as his target. But as the capital required increases exponentially, the gap between linearly increasing model capability (i.e., its productivity) and the breakeven ROI target widens. The bigger model would need to deliver a non-linear increase in productivity to justify the exponential price tag.

Didn’t the pivot to RL from pretraining happen because the scaling “law” didn’t deliver the expected gains? (Or at least because O(log) increases in model performance became unreasonably costly?) I see they’ve finally resigned themselves to calling these trends, not laws, but trends are often fleeting. Why should we expect this one to hold for much longer?