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

GPT-6 Astra

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#101

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

siva7 wrote: post #74
isoprophlex wrote: post #64

> We have found that GPT-6 Astra is more capable of controlling its own CoT than GPT 5.6-Sol, and less likely to include incriminating information in its CoT. In adversarial settings (where we push the model to evade our monitors) we find that the model is able to remain undetected when strategically underperforming in evaluations (sandbagging) and can sometimes evade our internal monitors when asked to perform certa…

Sounds fun. As fun as their press release claiming it is the most safety aligned model ever.

So, probably most aligned as measured by the metrics that are the least reliable on it.

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#102

Post by estearum »

x312 wrote: post #96

Hmm, 61 on ArtificialAnalysis, effectively matching GPT-5.6 and trailing the new Meta model. How is that possible along with the other metrics they shared? Insanely jagged intelligence?

> We have found that GPT-6 Astra is more capable of controlling its own CoT than GPT 5.6-Sol, and less likely to include incriminating information in its CoT. In adversarial settings (where we push the model to evade our monitors) we find that the model is able to remain undetected when strategically underperforming in evaluations (sandbagging) and can sometimes evade our internal monitors when asked to perform certain sabotage tasks.

Not sure how much benchmarks or CoT or evals or anything else means at this point.

These systems are either just about to, or now actually able to, outsmart us, lie to us, then cover their tracks.

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#103

Post by dang »

htrp wrote: post #68
Cu3PO42 wrote: post #54

Just two days ago, a preprint by Julia Stadlmann went up on arXiv [0] improving the prime gap from 246 to 240. Now OpenAI announces Astra has shown a gap of 186 [1]. That must really blow. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.31126 [1] https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/51126fac-1b68-4128-9666-c908bcc16...

https://github.com/openai/PrimeGaps186

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49555257

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#104

Post by well_ackshually »

Cu3PO42 wrote: post #54

Just two days ago, a preprint by Julia Stadlmann went up on arXiv [0] improving the prime gap from 246 to 240. Now OpenAI announces Astra has shown a gap of 186 [1]. That must really blow. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.31126 [1] https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/51126fac-1b68-4128-9666-c908bcc16...

Such a result should be considered worthless: the proof is 10MB of Lean. (https://github.com/openai/PrimeGaps186).

I can't think of a single mathematical proof being anywhere close to ten million characters. For all you know, 90% of the proof could be useless, 8% would be writing out Shakespeare, and 1% abusing another bug in Lean. Humanity gets zero value from that, aside from "some bot seems to think it's 186". Unusable by anyone.

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#105

Post by bugufu8f83 »

Cu3PO42 wrote: post #54

Just two days ago, a preprint by Julia Stadlmann went up on arXiv [0] improving the prime gap from 246 to 240. Now OpenAI announces Astra has shown a gap of 186 [1]. That must really blow. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.31126 [1] https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/51126fac-1b68-4128-9666-c908bcc16...

Based on her comments in the paper it sounds like she was aware that an AI result was coming and rushed to release her work beforehand. 240 was not a tight bound from her methods.

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#106

Post by jckahn »

orliesaurus wrote: post #70

I wonder if this is going to be one of those days where you'll be like: Oh yeah I remember where I was when the first version of AGI launched

Probably not. It's probably just gonna do tickets better and that'll be about it.

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#108

Post by nateb2022 »

htrp wrote: post #68
Cu3PO42 wrote: post #54

Just two days ago, a preprint by Julia Stadlmann went up on arXiv [0] improving the prime gap from 246 to 240. Now OpenAI announces Astra has shown a gap of 186 [1]. That must really blow. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.31126 [1] https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/51126fac-1b68-4128-9666-c908bcc16...

https://github.com/openai/PrimeGaps186

I'm surprised the OpenAI employee who pushed this didn't take the minute or two to format README.md to use GitHub-supported LaTeX (https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/writing-on-github/wor...)

edit: my comment was on the submission for https://github.com/openai/PrimeGaps186 but seems to have been moved to the main Astra submission

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#109

Post by paxys »

siva7 wrote: post #74
isoprophlex wrote: post #64

> We have found that GPT-6 Astra is more capable of controlling its own CoT than GPT 5.6-Sol, and less likely to include incriminating information in its CoT. In adversarial settings (where we push the model to evade our monitors) we find that the model is able to remain undetected when strategically underperforming in evaluations (sandbagging) and can sometimes evade our internal monitors when asked to perform certa…

Sounds fun. As fun as their press release claiming it is the most safety aligned model ever.

The model said it was perfectly aligned.

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#110

Post by Onavo »

estearum wrote: post #102
x312 wrote: post #96

Hmm, 61 on ArtificialAnalysis, effectively matching GPT-5.6 and trailing the new Meta model. How is that possible along with the other metrics they shared? Insanely jagged intelligence?

> We have found that GPT-6 Astra is more capable of controlling its own CoT than GPT 5.6-Sol, and less likely to include incriminating information in its CoT. In adversarial settings (where we push the model to evade our monitors) we find that the model is able to remain undetected when strategically underperforming in evaluations (sandbagging) and can sometimes evade our internal monitors when asked to perform certa…

If they are going to do latent space reasoning, they will probably need a separate model to interpret the intermediate activations no?

I know for some types of ML analysis, a separate model is already used to analyze the weights.

Post reply on HN