Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ARC-AGI-3

arcprize.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 394 posts

Re: ARC-AGI-3

#211

Post by Imnimo »

thereitgoes456 wrote: post #206
Imnimo wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose you construct a Mechanical Turk AI who plays ARC-AGI-3 by, for each task, randomly selecting one of the human players who attempted it, and scoring them as an AI taking those same actions would be scored. What score does this Turk get? It must be <100% since sometimes the random human will take more steps than the second best, but without knowing whether it's 90% or 50% it's very hard for me to contextualize…

The people recruited weren’t experts. I can imagine it’s straightforward to find humans (such as those that play many video games) that can score >100% on this benchmark.

So, if you look at the way the scoring works, 100% is the max. For each task, you get full credit if you solve in a number of steps less than or equal to the baseline. If you solve it with more steps, you get points off. But each task is scored independently, and you can't "make up" for solving one slowly by solving another quickly.

Like suppose there were only two tasks, each with a baseline score of solving in 100 steps. You come along and you solve one in only 50 steps, and the other in 200 steps. You might hope that since you solved one twice as quickly as the baseline, but the other twice as slowly, those would balance out and you'd get full credit. Instead, your scores are 1.0 for the first task, and 0.25 (scoring is quadratic) for the second task, and your total benchmark score is a mere 0.625.

Re: ARC-AGI-3

#212

Post by mvkel »

Was just at the YC launch event for this. Haven't felt this much inspiration in a while. Incredible minds confronting on tech that will change our society.

I met a guy who, for fun, started working on ARC2, and as he got the number to go up in the eval, a novel way to more efficiently move a robotic arm emerged. All that to say: chasing evals per se can have tangible real world benefits.

Talking to the ARC folks tonight, it sounds like there will be an ARC-4,5,6,etc. I mean of course there will be.

But with them will be an increasing expectation that these models can eventually figure things out with zero context, and zero pretraining; you drop a brain into any problem and it'll figure out how to dig its way out.

That's really exciting.

Re: ARC-AGI-3

#213

Post by mvkel »

BeetleB wrote: post #39

> As long as there is a gap between AI and human learning, we do not have AGI. Back in the 90's, Scientific American had an article on AI - I believe this was around the time Deep Blue beat Kasparov at chess. One AI researcher's quote stood out to me: "It's silly to say airplanes don't fly because they don't flap their wings the way birds do." He was saying this with regards to the Turing test, but I think the sentim…

Humans can do a lot of things that don't require intelligence. Artificial intelligence does not need to be 100% human to be AGI.

Re: ARC-AGI-3

#214

Post by keiferski »

jonahx wrote: post #139
BeetleB wrote: post #39

> As long as there is a gap between AI and human learning, we do not have AGI. Back in the 90's, Scientific American had an article on AI - I believe this was around the time Deep Blue beat Kasparov at chess. One AI researcher's quote stood out to me: "It's silly to say airplanes don't fly because they don't flap their wings the way birds do." He was saying this with regards to the Turing test, but I think the sentim…

> As long as there is a gap between AI and human learning, we do not have AGI. Don't read the statement as a human dunk on LLMs, or even as philosophy. The gap is important because of its special and devastating economic consequences. When the gap becomes truly zero, all human knowledge work is replaceable. From there, with robots, its a short step to all work is replaceable. What's worse, the condition is sufficient…

The gap is important because of its special and devastating economic consequences. When the gap becomes truly zero, all human knowledge work is replaceable. From there, with robots, its a short step to all work is replaceable.

I don’t know why statements like this are just taken as gospel fact. There are plenty of economic activities which do not disappear even if an AI can do them.

Here’s one: I support certain artists because I care about their particular life story and have seen them perform live. I don’t care if an AI can replicate their music because the AI didn’t experience life.

Here’s another: positions that have deep experience in certain industries and have valuable networks; or that derive power by being in certain positions. You could build a model that incorporates every single thing the US president, any president, ever said, and it still wouldn’t get you in the position of being president. Many roles are contextual, not knowledge-based.

The idea that AGI replaces all work only makes sense if you’re talking about a world with completely open, free information access. I don’t just mean in the obvious sense; I mean also “inside your head.” AI can only use data it has access to, and it’s never going to have access to everyone’s individual brain everywhere at all times.

So here’s a better prediction: markets will gradually shift to adjust to this, information will become more secretive, and attention-based entertainment economics will become a larger and larger share of the overall economy.

Re: ARC-AGI-3

#215

Post by sanxiyn »

fchollet wrote: post #65
Tiberium wrote: post #35

https://x.com/scaling01 has called out a lot of issues with ARC-AGI-3, some of them (directly copied from tweets, with minimal editing): - Human baseline is "defined as the second-best first-run human by action count". Your "regular people" are people who signed up for puzzle solving and you don't compare the score against a human average but against the second best human solution - The scoring doesn't tell you how m…

Francois here. The scoring metric design choices are detailed in the technical report: https://arcprize.org/media/ARC_AGI_3_Technical_Report.pdf - the metric is meant to discount brute-force attempts and to reward solving harder levels instead of the tutorial levels. The formula is inspired by the SPL metric from robotics navigation, it's pretty standard, not a brand new thing. We tested ~500 humans over 90 minute se…

While I think all of your design choices are defensible, I do think you should release the full human baseline data. The second best action count is fine, but other choices are reasonable as well.

Re: ARC-AGI-3

#216

Post by petesergeant »

olalonde wrote: post #210
WarmWash wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know they aren't conscious of we don't know what consciousness is, and have no test to see if anyone or anything is conscious? This may seem like a joke, but your answer will likely be in the vain of "conscious things are obviously conscious", which gets us nowhere. I mean, self motivation and a desire to not be turned off can be programmed into even decades old AIs.

As a philosophical zombie myself[0], I'm well aware of how hard it is to define and test consciousness. That's why I tried to clarify what I meant with: desire for self-preservation and intrinsic motivation. Which LLMs clearly lack, don't you agree? Also, I'm not saying that those things couldn't be programmed in, just that so far, they don't seem necessary . [0] I lack a conscious experience and qualia

> desire for self-preservation and intrinsic motivation

I’d be curious about how you’re showing they lack either of those

Re: ARC-AGI-3

#217

Post by nopinsight »

foltik wrote: post #170
benjaminl wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This issue here is that people have different definitions of AGI. From the description. Getting 100% on this benchmark would be more than AGI and would qualify for ASI (Algorithmic Super Intelligence) not just AGI.

I’d be hesitant to call that ASI if it’s pretty obvious how you’d write a regular old program to solve it.

It’s not that simple since each problem is supposed to be distinct and different enough that no single program can solve multiple of them properly. No problem spec is provided as well iiuc so you can’t simply ask an LLM to generate code without doing other things.

Re: ARC-AGI-3

#218

Post by keiferski »

WarmWash wrote: post #207
olalonde wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can I tell what? That current LLMs are not conscious or that AGI/ASI will not require consciousness?

How do you know they aren't conscious of we don't know what consciousness is, and have no test to see if anyone or anything is conscious? This may seem like a joke, but your answer will likely be in the vain of "conscious things are obviously conscious", which gets us nowhere. I mean, self motivation and a desire to not be turned off can be programmed into even decades old AIs.

Consciousness is a huge topic and beyond a HN comment, but: My answer to this is that they obviously lack a basic understanding of simple things that any continually conscious being would find trivial. I have spent a lot of time having long form exploratory conversations on a particular topic with AI, and you begin to see how it doesn’t really understand what you’re talking about, it just makes a prediction about what you probably mean.

There is also apparently no real memory; if I tell it to stop doing something today, it’ll agree, then go back to doing it again tomorrow, with no memory of our conversation. This never changes, no matter how many times I ask.

Again we could debate consciousness forever, but in a simple sense, are there any other conscious beings without this sense of continuity? Not that I can think of. And so if everything we call “conscious” is different from an AI, then are we justified in extending it to AI?

Re: ARC-AGI-3

#219

Post by red75prime »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #94
Tiberium wrote: post #35

https://x.com/scaling01 has called out a lot of issues with ARC-AGI-3, some of them (directly copied from tweets, with minimal editing): - Human baseline is "defined as the second-best first-run human by action count". Your "regular people" are people who signed up for puzzle solving and you don't compare the score against a human average but against the second best human solution - The scoring doesn't tell you how m…

Those are supposed to be issues? After reading your list my impression of ARC-AGI has gone up rather than down. All of those things seem like the right way to go about this.

No, those aren't issues. But it's good to know the meaning of those numbers we get. For example, 25% is about the average human level (on this category of problems). 100% is either top human level or superhuman level or the information-theoretically optimal level.

Re: ARC-AGI-3

#220

Post by Marha01 »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #126
causal wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes, and would hand even more of an advantage to humans. My point is that designing a test around human advantages seems odd and orthogonal to measuring AGI.

The whole point of AGI is "general" intelligence, and for that intelligence to be broadly useful it needs to exist within the context of a human centric world

Does this mean blind people are not intelligent?
Post reply on HN