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

231–240 of 394 posts

Re: ARC-AGI-3

#231

Post by olalonde »

petesergeant wrote: post #216
olalonde wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They don't try to prevent you from deleting them and they don't output anything unless prompted.

Re: ARC-AGI-3

#232

Post by yes_man »

keiferski wrote: post #218
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.

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 wha…

So is a person suffering from amnesia conscious if they lack short-term and long-term memory?

Ruling out consciousness or qualia emerging from the inference in an LLM is just as invalid of a take as being 100% certain of its consciousness. We don’t know what consciousness really is, so only thing we can say with certainty is we do not know.

Re: ARC-AGI-3

#233

Post by mycocola »

k2xl wrote: post #115

I submitted puzzle game Pathology ( https://thinky.gg ) for ARC Prize 3. Sad to see didn’t hear back from the committee. It is a simple game with simple rules that solvers have an incredibly difficult time solving compared to humans at a certain level. Solutions are easy to validate but hard to find.

Seems well-designed. Great job! Sorry you didn't hear back from the comittee.

Re: ARC-AGI-3

#234

Post by energy123 »

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

[dead]

Re: ARC-AGI-3

#235

Post by keiferski »

yes_man wrote: post #232
keiferski wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wha…

So is a person suffering from amnesia conscious if they lack short-term and long-term memory? Ruling out consciousness or qualia emerging from the inference in an LLM is just as invalid of a take as being 100% certain of its consciousness. We don’t know what consciousness really is, so only thing we can say with certainty is we do not know.

No, by continuity I mean literally moment to moment. Sorry if I didn’t clarify that. Even people with amnesia are still present moment to moment. As far as I know there are no things that we call conscious which have zero continuity.

I think consciousness is not an abstract property in the world, therefore it’s tied to certain types of entities. Therefore an AI is not going to be “conscious” in the way an animal is, and never will be. This is a failing of specific language. Maybe the machines can be aware, input data, mimic what we see as consciousness, etc. but the metaphor of consciousness really doesn’t fit. A jet can move faster than an eagle but it’s not moving in the same way. We simply lack a sophisticated enough language to easily differentiate the two.

Re: ARC-AGI-3

#236

Post by pawelk411 »

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…

New benchmark idea: 20 questions of guess the number 1-10, with different answers. We run this on 10,000 humans, take best score. Then we take 50 ai attempts, but take the worst attempt so "worst case scenarior robustness or so". We also discard questions where human failed but ai passed because uhhh reasons... Then we also take the final relative score to the power of 100 so that the benchmark punishes bad answers or sum. Good benchmark?

Re: ARC-AGI-3

#237

Post by nananana9 »

keiferski wrote: post #214
jonahx wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 arti…

Very few artists or aspiring artists make enough money from their art to make a living -- even now, when the average person has a job and at least some disposable money and can support artists. This % will not get higher if we get 1000x more artists, and 1000x less employed people working in the general economy.

You can't get deep experience in any industry if there's a machine that can do the entry-level work for a fraction of the cost you can. And keep in mind that, by definition, this machine can learn to do everything you can, so it's in a much better position than you to get that deep experience you speak of.

If we get what's essentially mass-producable brains, and information gets more secretive as you say, if we have say 1000 machines for every person in the economy, they're in a better position than you to produce said valuable secret information.

Re: ARC-AGI-3

#238

Post by AbanoubRodolf »

dgfl wrote: post #200
Real_Egor wrote: post #191

I'll probably be the skeptic here, but: - Take a person who grew up playing video games. They'll pass these tests 100% without even breaking a sweat. - BUT, put a grandmother who has never used a computer in front of this game, and she'll most likely fail completely. Just like an LLM. As soon as models are "natively" trained on a massive dataset of these types of games, they'll easily adapt and start crushing these c…

Isn’t this what AGI is by design? People CAN learn to become good at videogames. Modern LLMs can’t, they have to be retrained from scratch (I consider pre-training to be a completely different process than learning). I also don’t necessarily agree that a grandma would fail. Give her enough motivation and a couple days and she’ll manage these. My main criticism would be that it doesn’t seem like this test allows onlin…

[flagged]

Re: ARC-AGI-3

#239

Post by yes_man »

keiferski wrote: post #235
yes_man wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is a person suffering from amnesia conscious if they lack short-term and long-term memory? Ruling out consciousness or qualia emerging from the inference in an LLM is just as invalid of a take as being 100% certain of its consciousness. We don’t know what consciousness really is, so only thing we can say with certainty is we do not know.

No, by continuity I mean literally moment to moment. Sorry if I didn’t clarify that. Even people with amnesia are still present moment to moment. As far as I know there are no things that we call conscious which have zero continuity. I think consciousness is not an abstract property in the world, therefore it’s tied to certain types of entities. Therefore an AI is not going to be “conscious” in the way an animal is,…

Doesn’t the LLM experience discrete continuity every time it infers the next token?

> I think consciousness is not an abstract property in the world, therefore it’s tied to certain types of entities. Therefore an AI is not going to be “conscious”

This pretty much sums up most arguments for why LLMs aren’t conscious: ”I think” followed by assertions. Only real argument is: science doesn’t quantify consciousness, we cannot quantify consciousness, let’s not assign so much certainty to models clearly exhibiting intelligence not being conscious in some way, to some degree.

Re: ARC-AGI-3

#240

Post by pawelk411 »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #171
causal wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that ARC AGI 3 specifically forbids harnesses that humans get to use.

So what? Are you suggesting that an agent exhibiting genuine AGI will be tripped up by having to ingest json rather than rgb pixels? LLMs are largely trained on textual data so json is going to be much closer to whatever native is for them. But by all means, give the agents access to an API that returns pixel data. However I fully expect that would reduce performance rather than increase it.

Because it is. Opus 4.6 jumps from 0.0% to 97.1% when given visual input
Post reply on HN