21–30 of 86 posts
To be clear, we’ll want to see how this performs against the hold-out set. If it holds up, though, it’s a big deal, and kind of in line with the vibes this year, which I’d typify as ‘harness matters’. Maybe we’d upgrade to ‘harness matters immensely’ if this can 100% ARC-AGI-3 on existing models (more in the 13% range without this harness). I’m pretty excited to see what sort of generalization we come to over the nex…
hmm, this is like pass@n until you get the high watermark? How would this mean anything?
Any custom harness for a problem shows that harness engineering is going away. Eventually models will introspect problems, then build custom harnesses tailored to that. Then use and modify the ephemeral harness as required. Sol Ultra style is the path forward. The models are smart enough to self serve their tooling and processes. Given a problem they can figure it out and ask for directions when needed.
Except in this case, it isn't yet smart enough. But I agree, building this capability in is coming, and will be really awesome.
Any custom harness for a problem shows that harness engineering is going away. Eventually models will introspect problems, then build custom harnesses tailored to that. Then use and modify the ephemeral harness as required. Sol Ultra style is the path forward. The models are smart enough to self serve their tooling and processes. Given a problem they can figure it out and ask for directions when needed.
it looks like what they are doing is using a frontier model to write a simulator for a game and then solve using it. it's not as impressive as it looks. the goals of Arc-AGI-like constructs is to get an IQ-like figure using raw'ish 2D measurement 'games' in the hope that it would signify something meaningful. what this harness does is get the model to write a simulator first, it's measuring something entirely differe…
This is classic goalpost movement. Arc-AGI-3 was launched this year with roughly 0.5% success for frontier models. being able to 99% it in less than six months sets a new record for Arc-AGI saturation timeline. Speaking of singularity measures. It is definitely a big deal, not least in that Chollet needs to cancel his summer vacation and write Arc-AGI-4 now.
This harness is really moving the goalpost by defeating the entire point of the test. Instead of seeing the strength of a model's world view, its ability to internally derive and intuit rules, and its ability to keep track of game state over time, we're just letting the AI cheat. This is just the LLM equivalent of running a chess engine to the side.
And this harness would not work in a remotely complex game and relies on the fact that Arc-AGI-3 is a focused test that only made the games as complicated as they needed to be for current model performance.
Any custom harness for a problem shows that harness engineering is going away. Eventually models will introspect problems, then build custom harnesses tailored to that. Then use and modify the ephemeral harness as required. Sol Ultra style is the path forward. The models are smart enough to self serve their tooling and processes. Given a problem they can figure it out and ask for directions when needed.
This makes sense if the models some how become unified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is classic goalpost movement. Arc-AGI-3 was launched this year with roughly 0.5% success for frontier models. being able to 99% it in less than six months sets a new record for Arc-AGI saturation timeline. Speaking of singularity measures. It is definitely a big deal, not least in that Chollet needs to cancel his summer vacation and write Arc-AGI-4 now.
Arc AGI are simple games, the hardness comes from the input being basically adversarial to LLM training. if you use an LLM scaffold that removes the adversarial part you are measuring something else. the harness basically outsources the alien nature of what the LLM is asked to do to algorithms it writes. this would actually be impressive if you got it to do that for a much more complicated game than Arc. with this ha…
I get what you mean in terms of testing the model itself to see its improvement in some domain. However if you can transform the domain to be better adapted to the model and achieve the desired results, this is indeed an accomplishment because a whole domain of problems is shown to be practically feasible with this technique without expensive model improvements. Of course the benchmark still exists without the harness, but the harness also exists which allows these problems to be solved.
As noted elsewhere the models themselves were used to build the harness, which means the models can in fact score this scores without intervention but building a harness for themselves adapted to the domain and using it. Is this cheating by the goal posts you’re setting?
There’s a real tension between “I want to solve problems and this technique shows how to solve the problem domain,” and the “I want to measure how something performs unassisted with other techniques.” Fortunately it’s not a mutually exclusive situation. You can do both simultaneously, gain the benefit of the technique to transform the problem into something tractable and keep measuring using the benchmark.