think we all recognize that this is a bit of an exaggeration
No, this is mathematically true. A strict 1% improvement over 365 consecutive cycles is 3778% improvement. Compound interest is really that powerful. No exaggeration there.
It’s misleading, though. The model doesn’t apply to most human improvement. It’s almost impossible to improve any metric by 1% in a day, almost impossible to avoid negative growth sometimes, certainly impossible (for any real human) to maintain a rate of improvement—declining marginal return for interventions kicks in quickly.
I think it’s worth noting decay, but you also need to recognize that novelty is a different dimension than growth in capability. You can have lots of novelty with zero change (neither improvement nor decay) in your likelihood of furthering any goals.
No, this is mathematically true. A strict 1% improvement over 365 consecutive cycles is 3778% improvement. Compound interest is really that powerful. No exaggeration there.
It’s misleading, though. The model doesn’t apply to most human improvement. It’s almost impossible to improve any metric by 1% in a day, almost impossible to avoid negative growth sometimes, certainly impossible (for any real human) to maintain a rate of improvement—declining marginal return for interventions kicks in quickly.
I think it’s worth noting decay, but you also need to recognize that novelty is a different dimension than growth in capability. You can have lots of novelty with zero change (neither improvement nor decay) in your likelihood of furthering any goals.