this post was submitted on 31 May 2025
202 points (86.6% liked)
Showerthoughts
35147 readers
695 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Its a horizontal asymtote. From x=1, as demonstrated in the graph, to around x=-4, where the asymtote is easily estimated by Y, it is 5 units.
Man just say you don't understand functions and that's it, you don't have to push it
Tell me how im wrong. Or why did you even bother?
Or you can just admit you dont have any data to quantify your assertion that AI advancement is exponential growth. So youre just going off vibes.
Would you even admit that linear growth can grow faster than exponential growth?
Edit:
How about this, this is a real easy one.
What type of function is this:
There is a theorem that "all smooth functions are locally linear". In other words, most "normal" functions are indistinguishable from a straight line on the graph if you zoom in far enough.
So that's not just not an easy one, it is an impossible one.
And yet you want me to believe that because "exponential functions can have a slow build up" it is definitely exponental.
I do not.
See my other response to your pre-edit comment.
Then what are we arguing about?
What exponential growth fundamentally is.
Exponential growth is exponential, we done here?
No, since you still seem to think it's the same as linear
What is this graphic exponential or linear
Looks exponential to me
Sigh. What about it looks exponential?
The tell tale smoothness?
The slope which increases, the slope is slightly greater at the right side than the left. Every continuous curve looks linear if you zoom in enough, that's pretty much the basis of calculus. I think you might need to review how exponents work before hammering your opinions about them. You keep insisting on vibes-based definitions to people who clearly have more mathematical education than you.
Instead of doubling down on a misunderstanding, maybe consider the opportunity to learn from others and correct your misconceptions for the future.
Lol. You're so off base. DATA defines the curve. If the DATA does not exhibit exponential behavior it is not exponential. Simple as that.
Buddy, I can say with confidence I've taken math courses you've never even heard of. You do not know what you're talking about.
Ooh you took a math class. When are they delivering your Nobel prize?
You don't get Nobel prizes for going to math class. What you do get is a basic understanding of math, which is more than sufficient to correct you on this. This was covered in Algebra, man. Review your notes.
What was covered? That functions are used to describe data sets?
In algebra? The basic properties of exponential functions, for one.
Let's start there then. What are the basic properties of exponential functions?
They grow proportionately to ax^n . Correspondingly, for values of x < 1, they look very similar to a simple linear slope. For values of x > 1, they grow very rapidly. Both portions are part of the function, it doesn't suddenly "become" exponential at the rapid increase, it's exponential the whole time.
Well there it is
What type of growth would you use to describe the advancement of AI?
What metric are you using? Data can't really be fit to a curve without data to plot.
The entire contention is you misunderstanding how exponential functions work., i.e. "if it's exponential, shouldn't we be rapidly accelerating by now?" Betrays a fundamental misunderstanding.
People don't expect AI to be exponential because of existing data. It's because once AI starts significantly improving itself, the advancement of AI, x, starts to apply to itself x^2 .
We won't know if it is, in fact, exponential until after the "knee" of the curve. But a slow advancement now does not preclude rapid acceleration in the near future. You've repeatedly demonstrated throughout the thread that you don't understand this.
Without the "knee" of the curve there is no exponential growth.
What best describes this curve
Edit: Maybe I have it wrong. From now on I will only model data as exponential functions because they are potentially exponential and the data set is just incomplete.
Again, buddy, no. That's not how math works. Math does not fit things to curves, math generates the curves. The object of math is the function, the ones that take data sets and fit them to curves are data analysts, for the purpose of predicting future behavior.
Zooming in on a particular section of a curve and observing that it looks roughly linear at that scale does not make the underlying function, which generates that curve, linear. Exponential growth is exponential growth, and it starts before the "knee". It's there the whole time, even when it looks linear.
Every continuous function looks linear when you zoom in enough, that's how derivatives work in calculus. The exponential function looks linear right up until it starts to not look linear anymore. The point of mapping real world systems to functions is to predict their future behavior, not just describe their present status.
The prediction that AI will go exponential is based on the premise of AI generating future AIs. Obviously, as AI gets better, the AIs that it generates will get better. As AI increases, the AIs thus generated increase by a factor of AI^2 . Once AI generated AIs are equivalent to those developed by a human, i.e. AI = 1, the rate of increase will accelerate, since every new model can make an even better model, which can make even better ones, ad infinitum.
No one knows for sure exactly what is going to enable AI to generate powerful AIs, but once it happens that's the knee. That's why it's hypothesized to be exponential. And that has big consequences, which is why people are eager not to miss the signs that it's ramping up.
Way to avoid my question for the umpteenth time
What best describes this curve.
Real world data does not behave according to a precieved underlying function. The functions we use are only useful as models. Models are approximations.
Dude, your question is dumb and useless. I "avoided" your question by explaining why it was dumb and useless. Re-read, then re-read again, then watch some YouTube videos about exponential functions, then watch some videos about the AI singularity, then do whatever you want after that because I'm done trying to teach the unteachable.
You re-read an re-read again. Either be direct or just go away and stop flagulating yourself.
BTW, your nobels in the mail.
You have to be trolling. This guy just perfectly explained why you're mistaken on both exponential curves, and the subject at hand. Why on earth are you still asking for the function of a graph you yourself have stated it is impossible to determine?
Piss off
You're just giving up? It's easier to just admit you were wrong. Could that hurt?
They're not saying that slow growth is definitely evidence it's exponential. They're saying that slow growth doesn't prove that it isn't exponential, which seemed to be what you were saying.
It's always hard to identify exponential growth in its early stages.
Do you accept that if we put together a metric to measure the advancement of AI that it would indicate it is growing over time?