Alex Fogelson

Alex Fogelson, Zachary A. Brown, Hans Gundlach et al.

As exponential compute scaling continues, will the capabilities of frontier AI models outstrip what is accessible to developers on a small fixed budget? Or will capabilities converge, with "meek models inheriting the earth"? Building on Gundlach et al. (2025b), we show that the answer depends on how we value and measure AI capabilities. We discuss conventional performance measures and show that, while validation loss shows a shrinking gap, on other metrics frontier models grow their lead forever. Classifying performance metrics by their functional forms in relation to training (and inference) compute, we provide tight mathematical conditions for determining which metrics favor meek models, and show that bounded performance metrics always do. But careful interpretation of performance metrics is essential: we show that many common bounded metrics have closely-related counterpart metrics that are unbounded (and vice versa). Determining the apt metric in a domain is a prerequisite for policy, since bounded and unbounded metrics may suggest opposing policy responses. If a particular capability -- like software engineering, synthetic biology, or rhetorical persuasiveness -- is unbounded when measured in the terms we care about, frontier-level capability will likely be concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy actors. Conversely, if that capability is instead bounded, frontier-level capabilities proliferate through meek models into the hands of the many.

Hans Gundlach, Alex Fogelson, Jayson Lynch et al.

Algorithms have been estimated to increase AI training FLOP efficiency by a factor of 22,000 between 2012 and 2023 [Ho et al., 2024]. Running small-scale ablation experiments on key innovations from this time period, we are able to account for less than 10x of these gains. Surveying the broader literature, we estimate that additional innovations not included in our ablations account for less than 10x, yielding a total under 100x. This leads us to conduct scaling experiments, which reveal that much of this efficiency gap can be explained by algorithms with scale-dependent efficiency improvements. In particular, we conduct scaling experiments between LSTMs and Transformers, finding exponent differences in their compute-optimal scaling law while finding little scaling difference for many other innovations. These experiments demonstrate that - contrary to standard assumptions - an algorithm's efficiency gains are tied to compute scale. Using experimental extrapolation and literature estimates, we account for 6,930x efficiency gains over the same time period, with the scale-dependent LSTM-to-Transformer transition accounting for the majority of gains. Our results indicate that algorithmic progress for small models has been far slower than previously assumed, and that measures of algorithmic efficiency are strongly reference-dependent.