> exponential is a constant % improvement per year
I suppose of you pick a low enough exponent then the exp graph is flat for a long time and you're right, zero progress is “exponential” if you cherry pick your growth rate to be low enough.
Generally though, people understand “exponential growth” as “getting better/bigger faster and faster in an obvious way”
> 3 -> 4 -> 5 were extraordinary leaps…not sure how one would be able to say anything else
They objectively were not.
The metrics and reception to them was very clear and overwhelming.
Youre spitting some meaningless revisionist BS here.
Doesn’t sound like you really seem to be interested in any sort of rational dialogue, metrics were “objectively” not better? What are you talking about of course they were have you even looked at benchmark progression for every benchmark we have?
You don’t understand what an exponential is or apparently what the benchmark numbers even are or possibly even how we actually measure model performance and the very real challenges and nuances involved but yet I’m “spitting some revisionist BS”. You have cited zero sources and are calling measured numbers “revisionist”.
You are also citing reception to models as some sort of indication of their performance, which is yet another confusing part of your reasoning.
I do agree that “metrics were were very clear” it just seems you don’t happen to understand what they are or what they mean.
I suppose of you pick a low enough exponent then the exp graph is flat for a long time and you're right, zero progress is “exponential” if you cherry pick your growth rate to be low enough.
Generally though, people understand “exponential growth” as “getting better/bigger faster and faster in an obvious way”
> 3 -> 4 -> 5 were extraordinary leaps…not sure how one would be able to say anything else
They objectively were not.
The metrics and reception to them was very clear and overwhelming.
Youre spitting some meaningless revisionist BS here.
Youre wrong.
Thats all there is to it.