arXiv subjects

Chien-Ping Lu

Publications and source records attributed to Chien-Ping Lu.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

The Computational Boundary of Inference: Capability Internalization, Training, and the Turing Jump

Claims about recursive self-improvement in AI often slide from repeated internal revision to the possibility of qualitatively stronger capability without clearly distinguishing the underlying computational regimes. This paper gives a formal separation result in classical computability theory that blocks that move under a precise modeling assumption. For an oracle $A$, let $\mathcal{C}(A)=\{B : B \leq_T A\}$ be the corresponding computational layer. We prove that finite internal self-modification remains inside $\mathcal{C}(A)$, while stabilized revision is governed instead by the jump $A'$ via the relativized limit lemma. Together with a local closure versus escape theorem, this yields a clean formal separation between within-layer iteration and ascent to a stronger relative level. The point is not that stronger layers never arise, but that they are not explained by finite repetition inside one already settled layer. The resulting separation gives a computability-theoretic limit on a broad class of recursive-improvement narratives in which repeated internal updating is treated as sufficient for qualitative capability ascent.

cs.CC↗

arXiv2026

Continued AI Scaling Requires Repeated Efficiency Doublings

This paper argues that continued AI scaling requires repeated efficiency doublings. Classical AI scaling laws remain useful because they make progress predictable despite diminishing returns, but the compute variable in those laws is best read as logical compute, not as a record of one fixed physical implementation. Practical burden therefore depends on the efficiency with which physical resources realize that compute. Under that interpretation, diminishing returns mean rising operational burden, not merely a flatter curve. Sustained progress then requires recurrent gains in hardware, algorithms, and systems that keep additional logical compute feasible at acceptable cost. The relevant analogy is Moore's Law, understood less as a theorem than as an organizing expectation of repeated efficiency improvement. AI does not yet have a single agreed cadence for such gains, but recent evidence suggests trends that are at least Moore-like and sometimes faster. The paper's claim is therefore simple: if AI scaling is to remain active, repeated efficiency doublings are not optional. They are required.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Modernizing Amdahl's Law: How AI Scaling Laws Shape Computer Architecture

Classical Amdahl's Law conceptualized the limit of speedup for an era of fixed serial-parallel decomposition and homogeneous replication. Modern heterogeneous systems need a different conceptual framework: constrained resources must be allocated across heterogeneous hardware while workloads themselves change, with some stages becoming effectively bounded and others continuing to absorb additional effective compute. This paper reformulates Amdahl's Law around that shift. We replace processor count with an allocation variable, replace the classical parallel fraction with a value-scalable fraction, and model specialization by a relative efficiency ratio between dedicated and programmable compute. The resulting objective yields a finite collapse threshold. For a specialized efficiency ratio R, there is a critical scalable fraction S_c = 1 - 1/R beyond which the optimal allocation to specialization becomes zero. Equivalently, for a given scalable fraction S, the minimum efficiency ratio required to justify specialization is R_c = 1/(1-S). Thus, as value-scalable workload grows, over-customization faces a rising bar. The point is not that one hardware class simply defeats another, but that architecture must preserve a sufficiently programmable substrate against a moving frontier of work whose marginal gains keep scaling. In practice, that frontier is often sustained by software- and model-driven efficiency doublings rather than by fixed-function redesign alone. The model helps explain the migration of value-producing work toward learned late-stage computation and the shared design pressure that is making both GPUs and AI accelerators more programmable2

cs.DC↗

arXiv2025

The Race to Efficiency: A New Perspective on AI Scaling Laws

As large-scale AI models expand, training becomes costlier and sustaining progress grows harder. Classical scaling laws (e.g., Kaplan et al. (2020), Hoffmann et al. (2022)) predict training loss from a static compute budget yet neglect time and efficiency, prompting the question: how can we balance ballooning GPU fleets with rapidly improving hardware and algorithms? We introduce the relative-loss equation, a time- and efficiency-aware framework that extends classical AI scaling laws. Our model shows that, without ongoing efficiency gains, advanced performance could demand millennia of training or unrealistically large GPU fleets. However, near-exponential progress remains achievable if the "efficiency-doubling rate" parallels Moore's Law. By formalizing this race to efficiency, we offer a quantitative roadmap for balancing front-loaded GPU investments with incremental improvements across the AI stack. Empirical trends suggest that sustained efficiency gains can push AI scaling well into the coming decade, providing a new perspective on the diminishing returns inherent in classical scaling.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2017

AI, Native Supercomputing and The Revival of Moore's Law

Based on Alan Turing's proposition on AI and computing machinery, which shaped Computing as we know it today, the new AI computing machinery should comprise a universal computer and a universal learning machine. The later should understand linear algebra natively to overcome the slowdown of Moore's law. In such a universal learnig machine, a computing unit does not need to keep the legacy of a universal computing core. The data can be distributed to the computing units, and the results can be collected from them through Collective Streaming, reminiscent of Collective Communication in Supercomputing. It is not necessary to use a GPU-like deep memory hierarchy, nor a TPU-like fine-grain mesh.

cs.AI↗