Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rohan Jaiswal's avatar

"Scale alone is likely not enough to coax out major AI gains" is a significant claim given how much capital is still being deployed against the scaling hypothesis. The alternatives you describe—RL, memory augmentation, recursive self-improvement—are compelling, but each redistributes rather than eliminates compute demand; it just moves the burden from pre-training to runtime. At theaifounder.substack.com I've been thinking about the economics here: if compute shifts from pre-training to inference-time learning, does that actually change the unit economics for AI product builders, or does it just change who pays the bill and at what point in the deployment lifecycle?

Rohan Jaiswal's avatar

'Scale alone is likely not enough to coax out major AI gains' is a position that felt contrarian 18 months ago and now reads close to consensus — but the interesting question is whether DeepSeek-R1's reinforcement learning results represent a new scaling axis rather than an alternative to scaling. If RL training is itself compute-intensive, the 'scaling is dead' thesis might be premature and what's really happening is a shift in *what* gets scaled. The memory-augmented systems work is interesting, but I'd want to know whether those gains are additive to current models or require architectural departures that reset existing capability gains. For domain-specific fine-tuning versus new architectures: where do you draw the line between these, given that RLHF is already domain-specific optimization applied to existing architectures? Thinking about the next wave of AI product infrastructure at theaifounder.substack.com.

6 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?