I've been thinking a lot about data bottlenecks, and I'm not sure who else is screaming this from the hilltops. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills looking at the jagged frontier thinking it's smooth if you order by data volume. the spikes in the jagged frontier are tasks with tons of data (either static or simulated; think math, programming, games), and the valleys are tasks with little or no data (cooking a lasagna, olfaction, manufacturing a passenger train). I don't know of any exceptions. if you order the jagged frontier by data it looks like a spiral frontier. models are superintelligent where we have enormous data, and progressively less so as we have less data. some tasks may draw data from static lakes of data, some may be from limitless waterfalls from simulators that convert compute into data. but ultimately, intelligence on a task is proportional to the data absorbed by the model for that task. scaling laws are real. if you are not bound by compute or algorithms (increasingly we are not), then intelligence is proportional to data. since we don't have a very good notion of task similarity, it's often difficult to know if data for one task will help you with another, without training a model and seeing. but, it doesn't seem like chess data helps much with math performance and vice versa. so when I refer to data, I refer to data that is task-relevant. maybe we call this the 'no shortcuts hypothesis'. all the rules-of-thumb about learning are at the root, the same -- Malcom Gladwell's 10,000 hours, Moravec's Paradox, Scaling Laws, the Bitter Lesson, Age of experience. If your learning system (model, brain, whatever) is unconstrained by compute, intelligence is proportional to accumulated experience. no shortcuts. want to be superhuman at chess? play all the chess, more than the whole species combined (good thing a model can do that in 24 hours). want to be superhuman at math? build a math simulator and lock the model in it and run it faster than reality. superhuman at coding? first, collect all public examples of humans writing and responding to code ever, make the model learn from that first, and then lock the model in a simulator where it fixes bug after bug, faster than realtime. superhuman at image generation? no shortcuts. but here, we don't have a simulator. so now we're moving around the spiral frontier away from closed-loop into large static lakes. still big enough to be superhuman though, which also applies to video, text, and audio. oh! and once you have a superhuman model, you can use it to bootstrap other tasks by making a superhuman model a judge on other tasks. let's keep marching along the spiral frontier, out of the realm of data abundance, simulators and large static lakes. biology? no shortcuts. go get a ton of data. and be freaking careful! you can get bad data in biology pretty easily. tilting a well plate 5 degrees the wrong way can ruin an experiment. so make sure you understand the domain, otherwise you're going to have to filter a lot out. robotics? no shortcuts. get the data. if you can build a simulator, do it, but be mindful our simulators don't have perfect correspondence with reality. so, build an arm farm. fold 1M shirts, put 1B balls in cups. play ping pong forever. olfaction? no shortcuts. smell the world. build a laboratory of chemical sensors, an international network of trained sensory panelists, a scent production factory, and link them all together. make millions of samples. smell millions of samples. take billions of chemical sensor readings. I totally buy super intelligence as a concept because I feel it, I use it for coding, the breakthrough math results speak for themselves. I see RSI coming, because how could an all-digital task like ML research and model building not fall to the current paradigm? But the notion that AI will come for everything, all at once, irrespective of domain, feels silly, because there are no shortcuts. if you want a specific form of intelligence, you have to get the data. looking at you @willdepue, I feel like we're both seeing the same thing