Missing gear vs secret sauce
I want to distinguish between the following two framings:
- missing gear/one wrong number problem/step function/understanding is discontinuous/payoff thresholds: "missing gear" doesn't imply that the last piece added is all that significant -- it just says that adding it caused a huge jump in capabilities.
- secret sauce for intelligence/small number of breakthroughs: "small number of breakthroughs" says that the last added piece must have been a significant piece (which is what a breakthrough is).
I'm not sure how different these two actually are. But when thinking about discontinuities, I've noticed that I am somewhat inconsistent about conflating these two and distinctly visualizing them.
| Term | Is the final piece a big breakthrough? | Nature of final piece | Found by humans or found by AI? | Length of lead time prior to final piece | Number of pieces | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Missing gear | ||||||
| Secret sauce | ||||||
| One wrong number function | ||||||
| Step function | ||||||
| Understanding is discontinuous | ||||||
| Payoff thresholds | ||||||
| One algorithm | ||||||
| Lumpy AI progress | ||||||
| Intelligibility of intelligence | ||||||
| Simple core algorithm | ||||||
| Small number of breakthroughs needed for AGI | ||||||
| Good consequentialist reasoning has low Kolmogorov complexity[1] |
