<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Inverse scaling can become U-shaped · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2211.02011/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2211.02011/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Inverse scaling can become U-shaped — mentioned by gwern</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34812230</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2211.02011:34812230</guid><pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2023 23:06:01 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I think there is a small possibility that optimal scaling as we understand it right now (scaling compute + task/data diversity + parameter count in an optimal fashion), could just emerge (or scale) consciousness. We at present do not know what leads to emergence in the many now-documented examples of emergent capabilities in large NNs (see https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.07682#google https://gwern.net/doc/ai/scaling/emergence/index ), cannot predict either their timing or their presence, and cannot even be sure that there is not &amp;#x27;hidden scaling&amp;#x27; where the capability would exhibit smooth scaling if…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2211.02011/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CL</category></item></channel></rss>
