[rat9988]

> Well, the first 90% is easy, the hard part is the second 90%.

You'd need to prove that this assertion applies here. I understand that you can't deduce the future gains rate from the past, but you also can't state this as universal truth.

[bayindirh]

No, I don't need to. Self driving cars is the most recent and biggest example sans LLMs. The saying I have quoted (which has different forms) is valid for programming, construction and even cooking. So it's a simple, well understood baseline.

Knowledge engineering has a notion called "covered/invisible knowledge" which points to the small things we do unknowingly but changes the whole outcome. None of the models (even AI in general) can capture this. We can say it's the essence of being human or the tribal knowledge which makes experienced worker who they are or makes mom's rice taste that good.

Considering these are highly individualized and unique behaviors, a model based on averaging everything can't capture this essence easily if it can ever without extensive fine-tuning for/with that particular person.

[enraged_camel]

>> No, I don't need to. Self driving cars is the most recent and biggest example sans LLMs.

Self-driving cars don't use LLMs, so I don't know how any rational analysis can claim that the analogy is valid.

>> The saying I have quoted (which has different forms) is valid for programming, construction and even cooking. So it's a simple, well understood baseline.

Sure, but the question is not "how long does it take for LLMs to get to 100%". The question is, how long does it take for them to become as good as, or better than, humans. And that threshold happens way before 100%.

[rat9988]

Self driving cars is not a proof. It only proves that having quick gains doesn't mean necessarily you'll get a 100% fast. It doesn't prove it will necessarily happen.

[damethos]

"covered/invisible knowledge" aka tacit knowledge

[thfuran]

>None of the models (even AI in general) can capture this

None of the current models maybe, but not AI in general? There’s nothing magical about brains. In fact, they’re pretty shit in many ways.

[sanderjd]

I read the comment more as "based on past experience, it is usually the case that the first 90% is easier than the last 10%", which is the right base case expectation, I think. That doesn't mean it will definitely play out that way, but you don't have to "prove" things like this. You can just say that they tend to be true, so it's a good expectation to think it will probably be true again.

[rybosworld]

The saying is more or less treated as a truism at this point. OP isn't claiming something original and the onus of proving it isn't on them imo.

I've heard this same thing repeated dozens of times, and for different domains/industries.

It's really just a variation of the 80/20 rule.