[mikkupikku]

Logical fallacies are vastly overrated. Unless the conversation is formal logic in the first place, "logical fallacies" are just a way to apply quick pattern matching to dismiss people without spending time on more substantive responses. In this case, both you and the other are speculating about the near future of a thing, neither of you knows.

[datsci_est_2015]

Hard to make a more substantive response when the OP’s entire comment was a one-sentence logical fallacy. I’m not cherry-picking here.

> In this case, both you and the other are speculating about the near future of a thing, neither of you knows.

One of us is making a much grander claim than the other:

  - LLMs have limitless potential for growth; because they are not capable of something today does not mean they won’t be capable of it tomorrow
  - LLMs have fundamental limitations due to their underlying architecture and therefore are not limitless in capability

[fenomas]

The post you replied to was:

> We went from 2 + 7 = 11 to "solved a frontier math problem" in 3 years, yet people don't think this will improve?

All that says is that the speaker thinks models will improve past where they are today. Not that it's a logical certainty (the first thing you jumped on them for), and certainly not anything about "limitless potential for growth" (which nobody even mentioned). With replies like this, invoking fallacies and attacking claims nobody made, you're adding a lot of heat and very little light here (and a few other threads on the page).

[datsci_est_2015]

> All that says is that the speaker thinks models will improve past where they are today. Not that it's a logical certainty

Exceedingly generous interpretation in my opinion. I tend to interpret rhetorical questions of that form as “it’s so obvious that I shouldn’t even have to ask it”.

[fenomas]

> generous interpretation

The term of art for that is steelmanning, and HN tries to foster a culture of it. Please check the guidelines link in the footer and ctrl+f "strongest".

[mikkupikku]

Better put than I could have.

[graemep]

OK, its not a logical fallacy, its a false assumption.

The belief in the inevitability of progress is a bad assumption. Especially if you assume a particular technology will keep advancing.

[mikkupikku]

We won't know if his assumption is false until time passes and moves future speculation into the empirical present.

[graemep]

A possibility is not a fact. Assuming a possibility will happen is not justified. Therefore it is false as an assumption, even if it is true it is a possiblity.

[mikkupikku]

I genuinely have no idea what you're on about. One guy expressed his belief about how the future will play out, and another disagreed. Time will be the judge of it, not either of us.