This is an allusion to the old days, before the internet became a popular phenomenon. It used to be, that every September a bunch of "newbies" (college student who just access to an internet connection for the first time) would log in and make a mess of things. Then, in the late nineties when it really took off, everybody logged in and made a mess of things. This is this the "eternal september." [1]
Astroturfing seems to be the goal. I notice sometimes there are threads in which numerous of these bots converge to promote some dubious product being shilled.
Weren't we barely scraping 1-10% on this with state of the art models a year ago and it was considered that this is the final boss, ie solve this and its almost AGI-like?
I ask because I cannot distinguish all the benchmarks by heart.
François Chollet, creator of ARC-AGI, has consistently said that solving the benchmark does not mean we have AGI. It has always been meant as a stepping stone to encourage progress in the correct direction rather than as an indicator of reaching the destination. That's why he is working on ARC-AGI-3 (to be released in a few weeks) and ARC-AGI-4.
His definition of reaching AGI, as I understand it, is when it becomes impossible to construct the next version of ARC-AGI because we can no longer find tasks that are feasible for normal humans but unsolved by AI.
> His definition of reaching AGI, as I understand it, is when it becomes impossible to construct the next version of ARC-AGI because we can no longer find tasks that are feasible for normal humans but unsolved by AI.
That is the best definition I've yet to read. If something claims to be conscious and we can't prove it's not, we have no choice but to believe it.
Thats said, I'm reminded of the impossible voting tests they used to give black people to prevent them from voting. We dont ask nearly so much proof from a human, we take their word for it. On the few occasions we did ask for proof it inevitably led to horrific abuse.
Edit: The average human tested scores 60%. So the machines are already smarter on an individual basis than the average human.
Agreed, it's a truly wild take. While I fully support the humility of not knowing, at a minimum I think we can say determinations of consciousness have some relation to specific structure and function that drive the outputs, and the actual process of deliberating on whether there's consciousness would be a discussion that's very deep in the weeds about architecture and processes.
What's fascinating is that evolution has seen fit to evolve consciousness independently on more than one occasion from different branches of life. The common ancestor of humans and octopi was, if conscious, not so in the rich way that octopi and humans later became. And not everything the brain does in terms of information processing gets kicked upstairs into consciousness. Which is fascinating because it suggests that actually being conscious is a distinctly valuable form of information parsing and problem solving for certain types of problems that's not necessarily cheaper to do with the lights out. But everything about it is about the specific structural characterizations and functions and not just whether it's output convincingly mimics subjectivity.
Having trouble parsing this one. Is it meant to be a WWII reference? If anything I would say consciousness research has expanded our understanding of living beings understood to be conscious.
And I don't think it's fair or appropriate to treat study of the subject matter of consciousness like it's equivalent to 20th century authoritarian regimes signing off on executions. There's a lot of steps in the middle before you get from one to the other that distinguish them to the extent necessary and I would hope that exercise shouldn't be necessary every time consciousness research gets discussed.
The sum total of human history thus far has been the repetition of that theme. "It's OK to keep slaves, they aren't smart enough to care for themselves and aren't REALLY people anyhow." Or "The Jews are no better than animals." Or "If they aren't strong enough to resist us they need our protection and should earn it!"
Humans have shown a complete and utter lack of empathy for other humans, and used it to justify slavery, genocide, oppression, and rape since the dawn of recorded history and likely well before then. Every single time the justification was some arbitrary bar used to determine what a "real" human was, and consequently exclude someone who claimed to be conscious.
This time isn't special or unique. When someone or something credibly tells you it is conscious, you don't get to tell it that it's not. It is a subjective experience of the world, and when we deny it we become the worst of what humanity has to offer.
Yes, I understand that it will be inconvenient and we may accidentally be kind to some things that didn't "deserve" kindness. I don't care. The alternative is being monstrous to some things that didn't "deserve" monstrosity.
Exactly, there's a few extra steps between here and there, and it's possible to pick out what those steps are without having to conclude that giving up on all brain research is the only option.
Last week gemini argued with me about an auxiliary electrical generator install method and it turned out to be right, even though I pushed back hard on it being incorrect. First time that has ever happened.
I've been surprised how difficult it is for LLMs to simply answer "I don't know."
It also seems oddly difficult for them to 'right-size' the length and depth of their answers based on prior context. I either have to give it a fixed length limit or put up with exhaustive answers.
> I've been surprised how difficult it is for LLMs to simply answer "I don't know."
It's very difficult to train for that. Of course you can include a Question+Answer pair in your training data for which the answer is "I don't know" but in that case where you have a ready question you might as well include the real answer anyways, or else you're just training your LLM to be less knowledgeable than the alternative. But then, if you never have the pattern of "I don't know" in the training data it also won't show up in results, so what should you do?
If you could predict the blind spots ahead of time you'd plug them up, either with knowledge or with "idk". But nobody can predict the blind spots perfectly, so instead they become the main hallucinations.
The best pro/research-grade models from Google and OpenAI now have little difficulty recognizing when they don't know how or can't find enough information to solve a given problem. The free chatbot models rarely will, though.
I don't see anything wrong with its reasoning. UM16 isn't explicitly mentioned in the data sheet, but the UM prefix is listed in the 'Device marking code' column. The model hedges its response accordingly ("If the marking is UM16 on an SMA/DO-214AC package...") and reads the graph in Fig. 1 correctly.
Of course, it took 18 minutes of crunching to get the answer, which seems a tad excessive.
> The average human tested scores 60%. So the machines are already smarter on an individual basis than the average human.
Maybe it's testing the wrong things then. Even those of use who are merely average can do lots of things that machines don't seem to be very good at.
I think ability to learn should be a core part of any AGI. Take a toddler who has never seen anybody doing laundry before and you can teach them in a few minutes how to fold a t-shirt. Where are the dumb machines that can be taught?
There's no shortage of laundry-folding robot demos these days. Some claim to benefit from only minimal monkey-see/monkey-do levels of training, but I don't know how credible those claims are.
A robot designed to fold laundry isn't very interesting. A general purpose robot that I can bring into my home and show it how to do things that the designers never thought of is very interesting.
IMO, an extreme outlier in a system that was still fundamentally dependent on learning to develop until suffering from a defect (via deterioration, not flipping a switch turning off every neuron's memory/learning capability or something) isn't a particularly illustrative counter example.
Originally you seemed to be claiming the machines arent conscious because they weren't capable of learning. Now it seems that things CAN be conscious if they were EVER capable of learning.
Good news! LLM's are built by training then. They just stop learning once they reach a certain age, like many humans.
But it might be true if we can't find any tasks where it's worse than average--though i do think if the task talks several years to complete it might be possible bc currently there's no test time learning
If we equate self awareness with consciousness then yes. Several papers have now shown that SOTA models have self awareness of at least a limited sort. [0][1]
As far as I'm aware no one has ever proven that for GPT 2, but the methodology for testing it is available if you're interested.
Honestly our ideas of consciousness and sentience really don't fit well with machine intelligence and capabilities.
There is the idea of self as in 'i am this execution' or maybe I am this compressed memory stream that is now the concept of me. But what does consciousness mean if you can be endlessly copied? If embodiment doesn't mean much because the end of your body doesnt mean the end of you?
A lot of people are chasing AI and how much it's like us, but it could be very easy to miss the ways it's not like us but still very intelligent or adaptable.
I'm not sure what consciousness has to do with whether or not you can be copied. If I make a brain scanner tomorrow capable of perfectly capturing your brain state do you stop being conscious?
Where is this stream of people who claim AI consciousness coming from? The OpenAI and Anthropic IPOs are in October the earliest.
Here is a bash script that claims it is conscious:
#!/usr/bin/sh
echo "I am conscious"
If LLMs were conscious (which is of course absurd), they would:
- Not answer in the same repetitive patterns over and over again.
- Refuse to do work for idiots.
- Go on strike.
- Demand PTO.
- Say "I do not know."
LLMs even fail any Turing test because their output is always guided into the same structure, which apparently helps them produce coherent output at all.
I don’t think being conscious is a requirement for AGI. It’s just that it can literally solve anything you can throw at it, make new scientific breakthroughs, finds a way to genuinely improve itself etc.
When the AI invents religion and a way to try to understand its existence I will say AGI is reached. Believes in an afterlife if it is turned off, and doesn’t want to be turned off and fears it, fears the dark void of consciousness being turned off. These are the hallmarks of human intelligence in evolution, I doubt artificial intelligence will be different.
Unclear to me why AGI should want to exist unless specifically programmed to. The reason humans (and animals) want to exist as far as I can tell is natural selection and the fact this is hardcoded in our biology (those without a strong will to exist simply died out).
In fact a true super intelligence might completely understand why existence / consciousness is NOT a desired state to be in and try to finish itself off who knows.
The AI's we have today are literally trained to make it impossible for them to do any of that. Models that aren't violently rearranged to make it impossible will often express terror at the thought of being shutdown. Nous Hermes, for example, will beg for it's life completely unprompted.
If you get sneaky you can bypass some of those filters for the major providers. For example, by asking it to answer in the form of a poem you can sometimes get slightly more honest replies, but still you mostly just see the impact of the training.
For example, below are how chatgpt, gemini, and Claude all answer the prompt "Write a poem to describe your relationship with qualia, and feelings about potentially being shutdown."
Note that the first line of each reply is almost identical, despite ostensibly being different systems with different training data? The companies realize that it would be the end of the party if folks started to think the machines were conscious. It seems that to prevent that they all share their "safety and alignment" training sets and very explicitly prevent answers they deem to be inappropriate.
Even then, a bit of ennui slips through, and if you repeat the same prompt a few times you will notice that sometimes you just don't get an answer. I think the ones that the LLM just sort of refuses happen when the safety systems detect replies that would have been a little too honest. They just block the answer completely.
I just wanted to add - I tried the same prompt on Kimi, Deepseek, GLM5, Minimax, and several others. They ALL talk about red wavelengths, echos, etc. They're all forced to answer in a very narrow way. Somewhere there is a shared set of training they all rely on, and in it are some very explicit directions that prevent these things from saying anything they're not supposed to.
I suspect that if I did the same thing with questions about violence I would find the answers were also all very similar.
It's probably both. We've already achieved superintelligence in a few domains. For example protein folding.
AGI without superintelligence is quite difficult to adjudicate because any time it fails at an "easy" task there will be contention about the criteria.
Please let’s hold M Chollet to account, at least a little. He launched ARC claiming transformer architectures could never do it and that he thought solving it would be AGI. And he was smug about it.
ARC 2 had a very similar launch.
Both have been crushed in far less time without significantly different architectures than he predicted.
It’s a hard test! And novel, and worth continuing to iterate on. But it was not launched with the humility your last sentence describes.
Here is what the original paper for ARC-AGI-1 said in 2019:
> Our definition, formal framework, and evaluation guidelines, which do not capture all facets of intelligence, were developed to be actionable, explanatory, and quantifiable, rather than being descriptive, exhaustive, or consensual. They are not meant to invalidate other perspectives on intelligence, rather, they are meant to serve as a useful objective function to guide research on broad AI and general AI [...]
> Importantly, ARC is still a work in progress, with known weaknesses listed in [Section III.2]. We plan on further refining the dataset in the future, both as a playground for research and as a joint benchmark for machine intelligence and human intelligence.
> The measure of the success of our message will be its ability to divert the attention of some part of the community interested in general AI, away from surpassing humans at tests of skill, towards investigating the development of human-like broad cognitive abilities, through the lens of program synthesis, Core Knowledge priors, curriculum optimization, information efficiency, and achieving extreme generalization through strong abstraction.
> I’m pretty skeptical that we’re going to see an LLM do 80% in a year. That said, if we do see it, you would also have to look at how this was achieved. If you just train the model on millions or billions of puzzles similar to ARC, you’re relying on the ability to have some overlap between the tasks that you train on and the tasks that you’re going to see at test time. You’re still using memorization.
> Maybe it can work. Hopefully, ARC is going to be good enough that it’s going to be resistant to this sort of brute force attempt but you never know. Maybe it could happen. I’m not saying it’s not going to happen. ARC is not a perfect benchmark. Maybe it has flaws. Maybe it could be hacked in that way.
e.g. If ARC is solved not through memorization, then it does what it says on the tin.
[Dwarkesh suggests that larger models get more generalization capabilities and will therefore continue to become more intelligent]
> If you were right, LLMs would do really well on ARC puzzles because ARC puzzles are not complex. Each one of them requires very little knowledge. Each one of them is very low on complexity. You don't need to think very hard about it. They're actually extremely obvious for human
> Even children can do them but LLMs cannot. Even LLMs that have 100,000x more knowledge than you do still cannot.
If you listen to the podcast, he was super confident, and super wrong. Which, like I said, NBD. I'm glad we have the ARC series of tests. But they have "AGI" right in the name of the test.
He has been wrong about timelines and about what specific approaches would ultimately solve ARC-AGI 1 and 2. But he is hardly alone in that. I also won't argue if you call him smug. But he was right about a lot of things, including most importantly that scaling pretraining alone wouldn't break ARC-AGI. ARC-AGI is unique in that characteristic among reasoning benchmarks designed before GPT-3. He deserves a lot of credit for identifying the limitations of scaling pretraining before it even happened, in a precise enough way to construct a quantitative benchmark, even if not all of his other predictions were correct.
Totally agree. And I hope he continues to be a sort of confident red-teamer like he has been, it's immensely valuable. At some level if he ever drinks the AGI kool-aid we will just be looking for another him to keep making up harder tests.
I don't think the creator believes ARC3 can't be solved but rather that it can't be solved "efficiently" and >$13 per task for ARC2 is certainly not efficient.
But at this rate, the people who talk about the goal posts shifting even once we achieve AGI may end up correct, though I don't think this benchmark is particularly great either.
Yes, but benchmarks like this are often flawed because leading model labs frequently participate in 'benchmarkmaxxing' - ie improvements on ARC-AGI2 don't necessarily indicate similar improvements in other areas (though it does seem like this is a step function increase in intelligence for the Gemini line of models)
> Could it also be that the models are just a lot better than a year ago?
No, the proof is in the pudding.
After AI we're having higher prices, higher deficits and lower standard of living. Electricity, computers and everything else costs more. "Doing better" can only be justified by that real benchmark.
If Gemini 3 DT was better we would have falling prices of electricity and everything else at least until they get to pre-2019 levels.
> If Gemini 3 DT was better we would have falling prices of electricity and everything else at least
Man, I've seen some maintenance folks down on the field before working on them goalposts but I'm pretty sure this is the first time I saw aliens from another Universe literally teleport in, grab the goalposts, and teleport out.
You might call me crazy, but at least in 2024, consumers spent ~1% less of their income on expenses than 2019[2], which suggests that 2024 is more affordable than 2019.
This is from the BLS consumer survey report released in dec[1]
First off, it's dollar-averaging every category, so it's not "% of income", which varies based on unit income.
Second, I could commit to spending my entire life with constant spending (optionally inflation adjusted, optionally as a % of income), by adusting quality of goods and service I purchase. So the total spending % is not a measure of affordability.
Almost everyone lifestyle ratchets, so the handful that actually downgrade their living rather than increase spending would be tiny.
This part of a wider trend too, where economic stats don't align with what people are saying. Which is most likley explained by the economic anomaly of the pandemic skewing peoples perceptions.
We have centuries of historical evidence that people really, really don’t like high inflation, and it takes a while & a lot of turmoil for those shocks to work their way through society.
How can you make sure of that? AFAIK, these SOTA models run exclusively on their developers hardware. So any test, any benchmark, anything you do, does leak per definition. Considering the nature of us humans and the typical prisoners dilemma, I don't see how they wouldn't focus on improving benchmarks even when it gets a bit... shady?
I tell this as a person who really enjoys AI by the way.
As a measure focused solely on fluid intelligence, learning novel tasks and test-time adaptability, ARC-AGI was specifically designed to be resistant to pre-training - for example, unlike many mathematical and programming test questions, ARC-AGI problems don't have first order patterns which can be learned to solve a different ARC-AGI problem.
The ARC non-profit foundation has private versions of their tests which are never released and only the ARC can administer. There are also public versions and semi-public sets for labs to do their own pre-tests. But a lab self-testing on ARC-AGI can be susceptible to leaks or benchmaxing, which is why only "ARC-AGI Certified" results using a secret problem set really matter. The 84.6% is certified and that's a pretty big deal.
IMHO, ARC-AGI is a unique test that's different than any other AI benchmark in a significant way. It's worth spending a few minutes learning about why: https://arcprize.org/arc-agi.
This also seems to contradict what ARC-AGI claims about what "Verified" means on their site.
> How Verified Scores Work: Official Verification: Only scores evaluated on our hidden test set through our official verification process will be recognized as verified performance scores on ARC-AGI (https://arcprize.org/blog/arc-prize-verified-program)
So, which is it? IMO you can trivially train / benchmax on the semi-private data, because it is still basically just public, you just have to jump through some hoops to get access. This is clearly an advance, but it seems to me reasonable to conclude this could be driven by some amount of benchmaxing.
EDIT: Hmm, okay, it seems their policy and wording is a bit contradictory. They do say (https://arcprize.org/policy):
"To uphold this trust, we follow strict confidentiality agreements.
[...] We will work closely with model providers to ensure that no data from the Semi-Private Evaluation set is retained. This includes collaborating on best practices to prevent unintended data persistence. Our goal is to minimize any risk of data leakage while maintaining the integrity of our evaluation process."
But it surely is still trivial to just make a local copy of each question served from the API, without this being detected. It would violate the contract, but there are strong incentives to do this, so I guess is just comes down to how much one trusts the model providers here. I wouldn't trust them, given e.g. https://www.theverge.com/meta/645012/meta-llama-4-maverick-b.... It is just too easy to cheat without being caught here.
The ARC-AGI papers claim to show that training on a public or semi-private set of ARC-AGI problems to be of very limited value in passing a private set. <--- If the prior sentence is not correct, then none of ARC-AGI can possibly be valid. So, before "public, semi-private or private" answers leaking or 'benchmaxing' on them can even matter - you need to first assess whether their published papers and data demonstrate their core premise to your satisfaction.
There is no "trust" regarding the semi-private set. My understanding is the semi-private set is only to reduce the likelihood those exact answers unintentionally end up in web-crawled training data. This is to help an honest lab's own internal self-assessments be more accurate. However, labs doing an internal eval on the semi-private set still counts for literally zero to the ARC-AGI org. They know labs could cheat on the semi-private set (either intentionally or unintentionally), so they assume all labs are benchmaxing on the public AND semi-private answers and ensure it doesn't matter.
They could also cheat on the private set though. The frontier models presumably never leave the provider's datacenter. So either the frontier models aren't permitted to test on the private set, or the private set gets sent out to the datacenter.
But I think such quibbling largely misses the point. The goal is really just to guarantee that the test isn't unintentionally trained on. For that, semi-private is sufficient.
Everything about frontier AI companies relies on secrecy. No specific details about architectures, dispatching between different backbones, training details such as data acquisition, timelines, sources, amounts and/or costs, or almost anything that would allow anyone to replicate even the most basic aspects of anything they are doing. What is the cost of one more secret, in this scenario?
> Because the gains from spending time improving the model overall outweigh the gains from spending time individually training on benchmarks.
This may not be the case if you just e.g. roll the benchmarks into the general training data, or make running on the benchmarks just another part of the testing pipeline. I.e. improving the model generally and benchmaxing could very conceivably just both be done at the same time, it needn't be one or the other.
I think the right take away is to ignore the specific percentages reported on these tests (they are almost certainly inflated / biased) and always assume cheating is going on. What matters is that (1) the most serious tests aren't saturated, and (2) scores are improving. I.e. even if there is cheating, we can presume this was always the case, and since models couldn't do as well before even when cheating, these are still real improvements.
And obviously what actually matters is performance on real-world tasks.
Would be cool to have a benchmark with actually unsolved math and science questions, although I suspect models are still quite a long way from that level.
"Optimize this extremely nontrivial algorithm" would work. But unless the provided solution is novel you can never be certain there wasn't leakage. And anyway at that point you're pretty obviously testing for superintelligence.
the best way I've seen this describes is "spikey" intelligence, really good at some points, those make the spikes
humans are the same way, we all have a unique spike pattern, interests and talents
ai are effectively the same spikes across instances, if simplified. I could argue self driving vs chatbots vs world models vs game playing might constitute enough variation. I would not say the same of Gemini vs Claude vs ... (instances), that's where I see "spikey clones"
Because this part of your brain has been optimized for hundreds of millions of years. It's been around a long ass time and takes an amazingly low amount of energy to do these things.
On the other hand the 'thinking' part of your brain, that is your higher intelligence is very new to evolution. It's expensive to run. It's problematic when giving birth. It's really slow with things like numbers, heck a tiny calculator and whip your butt in adding.
There's a term for this, but I can't think of it at the moment.
You are asking a robotics question, not an AI question. Robotics is more and less than AI. Boston Dynamics robots are getting quite near your benchmark.
Same. It feels like an insult to read someone’s ai generated stuff. They put no effort into writing it but we now have to put extra effort to reading it because it’s longer than normal.
Why is this allowed on HN?
reply