151–160 of 1001 posts
I’m super curious as to whether this technology completely destroys the middle class, or if everyone becomes better off because productivity is going to skyrocket.
My initial impression: it's very impressive and very exciting. My skeptical impression: it's complete hubris to conflate ARC or any benchmark with truly general intelligence. I know my skepticism here is identical to moving goalposts. More and more I am shifting my personal understanding of general intelligence as a phenomenon we will only ever be able to identify with the benefit of substantial retrospect. As it is…
These comments are getting ridiculous. I remember when this test was first discussed here on HN and everyone agreed that it clearly proves current AI models are not "intelligent" (whatever that means). And people tried to talk me down when I theorised this test will get nuked soon - like all the ones before. It's time people woke up and realised that the old age of AI is over. This new kind is here to stay and it wil…
I'd love more progress on tasks in the physical world, though. There are only a few paths for countries to deal with a growing ratio of old retired people to young workers:
1) Prioritize the young people at the expense of the old by e.g. cutting old age benefits (not especially likely since older voters have greater numbers and higher participation rates in elections)
2) Prioritize the old people at the expense of the young by raising the demands placed on young people (either directly as labor, e.g. nurses and aides, or indirectly through higher taxation)
3) Rapidly increase the population of young people through high fertility or immigration (the historically favored path, but eventually turns back into case 1 or 2 with an even larger numerical burden of older people)
4) Increase the health span of older people, so that they are more capable of independent self-care (a good idea, but difficult to achieve at scale, since most effective approaches require behavioral changes)
5) Decouple goods and services from labor, so that old people with diminished capabilities can get everything they need without forcing young people to labor for them
My initial impression: it's very impressive and very exciting. My skeptical impression: it's complete hubris to conflate ARC or any benchmark with truly general intelligence. I know my skepticism here is identical to moving goalposts. More and more I am shifting my personal understanding of general intelligence as a phenomenon we will only ever be able to identify with the benefit of substantial retrospect. As it is…
These comments are getting ridiculous. I remember when this test was first discussed here on HN and everyone agreed that it clearly proves current AI models are not "intelligent" (whatever that means). And people tried to talk me down when I theorised this test will get nuked soon - like all the ones before. It's time people woke up and realised that the old age of AI is over. This new kind is here to stay and it wil…
I was just thinking about how 3D game engines were perceived in the 90s. Every six months some new engine came out, blew people's minds, was declared photorealistic, and was forgotten a year later. The best of those engines kept improving and are still here, and kinda did change the world in their own way.
Software development seemed rapid and exciting until about Halo or Half Life 2, then it was shallow but shiny press releases for 15 years, and only became so again when OpenAI's InstructGPT was demonstrated.
While I'm really impressed with current AI, and value the best models greatly, and agree that they will change (and have already changed) the world… I can't help but think of the Next Generation front cover, February 1997 when considering how much further we may be from what we want: https://www.giantbomb.com/pc/3045-94/forums/unreal-yes-this-...
My initial impression: it's very impressive and very exciting. My skeptical impression: it's complete hubris to conflate ARC or any benchmark with truly general intelligence. I know my skepticism here is identical to moving goalposts. More and more I am shifting my personal understanding of general intelligence as a phenomenon we will only ever be able to identify with the benefit of substantial retrospect. As it is…
These comments are getting ridiculous. I remember when this test was first discussed here on HN and everyone agreed that it clearly proves current AI models are not "intelligent" (whatever that means). And people tried to talk me down when I theorised this test will get nuked soon - like all the ones before. It's time people woke up and realised that the old age of AI is over. This new kind is here to stay and it wil…
On the other hand, there is a long, long history of AI achieving X but not being what we would casually refer to as "generally intelligent," then people deciding X isn't really intelligence; only when AI achieves Y will it be intelligence. Then AI achieves Y and...
Great results. However, let's all just admit it. It has well replaced journalists, artists and on its way to replace nearly both junior and senior engineers. The ultimate intention of "AGI" is that it is going to replace tens of millions of jobs. That is it and you know it. It will only accelerate and we need to stop pretending and coping. Instead lets discuss solutions for those lost jobs. So what is the replacement…
When none of us have jobs or income, there will be no ability for us to buy products. And then no reason for companies to buy ads to sell products to people who don’t have money. Without ad money (or the potential of future ad money), the people pushing the bounds of AGI into work replacement will lose the very income streams powering this research and their valuations. Ford didn’t support a 40 hour work week out of…
In reality, if there really is mass unemployment, AI driven automation will make consumables so cheap that anyone will be able to buy it.
[flagged]
Efficiency is now key. ~=$3400 per single task to meet human performance on this benchmark is a lot. Also it shows the bullets as "ARC-AGI-TUNED", which makes me think they did some undisclosed amount of fine-tuning (eg. via the API they showed off last week), so even more compute went into this task. We can compare this roughly to a human doing ARC-AGI puzzles, where a human will take (high variance in my subjective…
report says it is $17 per task, and $6k for whole dataset of 400 tasks.
Great. Now we have to think of a new way to move the goalposts.
O3 High (tuned) model scored an 88% at what looks like $6,000/task haha I think soon we'll be pricing any kind of tasks by their compute costs. So basically, human = $50/task, AI = $6,000/task, use human. If AI beats human, use AI? Ofc that's considering both get 100% scores on the task
It's not 6000/task (i.e per question). 6000 is about the retail cost for evaluating the entire benchmark on high efficiency (about 400 questions)
And o1 cost $15/$60 for 1M in/out, so the estimated costs on the graph would match for a single task, not the whole benchmark.
How much longer can I get paid $150k to write code ?
I’ll believe the models can take the jobs of programmers when they can generate a sophisticated iOS app based on some simple prompts, ready for building and publication in the app store. That is nowhere near the horizon no matter how much things are hyped up, and it may well never arrive.
The most bizarre thing is that programmers are literally writing code to replace themselves because once this AI started, it was a race to the bottom and nobody wants to be last.
