马匹:人工智能的进步是稳定的。人类的等价性是突然的。
Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden

原始链接: https://andyljones.com/posts/horses.html

本次演讲将人工智能的快速发展与历史上的“突然等价”时刻相提并论——即技术迅速超越现有技能的时刻。演讲者以蒸汽机取代马匹(缓慢积累,然后马匹迅速衰落)以及计算机迅速超越人类国际象棋大师作为先例。 目前,人工智能基础设施的投资在稳步增加,但“等价”的*体验*并未如此。演讲者,前Anthropic人工智能研究员,用自己的工作经历来说明:在短短六个月内,人工智能(特别是Claude)从协助回答新员工问题,发展到处理80%的咨询量——超过了整个人工团队的容量——且成本仅为人工团队的一小部分。 这种快速的取代速度,远快于受蒸汽机或国际象棋人工智能影响的人们所经历的速度,促使演讲者反思2500万匹马被淘汰的命运。他们担心许多职业将面临类似的快速和颠覆性未来,并希望有一个比那些马匹更长的过渡期。

一场 Hacker News 的讨论围绕着人工智能的进步本质及其对人类价值的潜在影响。最初的帖子认为,人工智能的进步感觉是“稳定”的,不像突然跃升到人类水平的能力。 评论者争论人工智能是否会在*所有*有价值的活动中超越人类,并认为即使在人工智能的辅助下,人与人之间的价值仍然会存在。一个关键的担忧是人工智能收益的公平分配;集中收益和广泛成本可能导致社会问题。 讨论还涉及人工智能进步的*类型*——是渐进式改进还是由突破性进展(如内燃机取代马匹)来打断?最终,核心问题是确定人工智能将在哪些领域明显优于人类,从而证明在工作和权力动态方面进行重大转变是合理的。
相关文章

原文

So after all these hours talking about AI, in these last five minutes I am going to talk about: horses.

Engine efficiency over time, showing steady improvement

Engines, steam engines, were invented in 1700.

And what followed was 200 years of steady improvement, with engines getting 20% better a decade.

For the first 120 years of that steady improvement, horses didn't notice at all.

Then, between 1930 and 1950, 90% of the horses in the US disappeared.

Progress in engines was steady. Equivalence to horses was sudden.


But enough about horses. Let's talk about chess!

Computer chess Elo over time, showing steady 50 point per year improvement

Folks started tracking computer chess in 1985.

And for the next 40 years, computer chess would improve by 50 Elo per year.

That meant in 2000, a human grandmaster could expect to win 90% of their games against a computer.

But ten years later, the same human grandmaster would lose 90% of their games against a computer.

Progress in chess was steady. Equivalence to humans was sudden.


Enough about chess! Let's talk about AI.

AI datacenter capital expenditure over time

Capital expenditure on AI has been pretty steady.

Right now we're - globally - spending the equivalent of 2% of US GDP on AI datacenters each year.

That number seems to have steadily been doubling over the past few years.

And it seems - according to the deals signed - likely to carry on doubling for the next few years.


But from my perspective, from equivalence to me, it hasn't been steady at all.

Questions answered by humans vs Claude over time

I was one of the first researchers hired at Anthropic.

This pink line, back in 2024, was a large part of my job. Answer technical questions for new hires.

Back then, me and other old-timers were answering about 4,000 new-hire questions a month.

Then in December, Claude finally got good enough to answer some of those questions for us.

In December, it was some of those questions. Six months later, 80% of the questions I'd been being asked had disappeared.

Claude, meanwhile, was now answering 30,000 questions a month; eight times as many questions as me & mine ever did.


Now. Answering those questions was only part of my job.

But while it took horses decades to be overcome, and chess masters years, it took me all of six months to be surpassed.

Cost per million words: AI researcher vs subsistence farmer vs Sonnet

Surpassed by a system that costs one thousand times less than I do.

A system that costs less, per word thought or written, than it'd cost to hire the cheapest human labor on the face of the planet.


And so I find myself thinking a lot about horses, nowadays.

Horses vs cars in the United States, with 'me' marked at 1920

In 1920, there were 25 million horses in the United States, 25 million horses totally ambivalent to two hundred years of progress in mechanical engines.

And not very long after, 93 per cent of those horses had disappeared.

I very much hope we'll get the two decades that horses did.

But looking at how fast Claude is automating my job, I think we're getting a lot less.


This was a five-minute lightning talk given over the summer of 2025 to round out a small workshop.

All opinions are my own and not those of my employer.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com