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

571–580 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#571

Post by sumedh »

dingdong2026 wrote: post #485
intenex wrote: post #248

The ARC-AGI-3 scorecard is extremely misleading given that it clearly states itself that "with [the responses API] harness, we estimate Sol would score in the ballpark of ~30%." but it shows a score of 7.8% for GPT-5.6 Sol presumably since if they updated the percentage for GPT-5.6 Sol to the score it would receive with the responses API harness they used for GPT-6 Astra they'd have to do the same for the percentage…

Only someone who doesn't do any work of any meaningful difficulty could think these models have anything to do with AGI. Today I spent half a day trying to solve a moderately interesting software engineering problem. I was switching between GPT-5.6 Sol and Fable 5.1 to check each other's work in Cursor. And the result was gradually driving me insane. As the models struggled to find a solution that would actually work…

Care to share the problem?

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#572

Post by TomGarden »

adastra22 wrote: post #551
abixb wrote: post #227

I want to take a step back: So, this is GPT-6 -- the natural number version release comparable to GPT-4 and GPT-5 from the past few years. The ARC-AGI-3 score is obviously impressive at 99.9% (we'll need to wait for more details on how they used the response API harness on GPT-6 Astra, wrt reasoning retention and compaction), but every other benchmarks seems to be a relatively modest improvement, comparable with any…

We've had AGI (artificial general intelligence) probably since the first release of ChatGPT, and certainly since the first agentic harnesses. They're just finally acknowledging what the term means.

There's so much that the term includes that isn't even feasible with an LLM

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#573

Post by cindyllm »

OpenGayEye wrote: post #555
intenex wrote: post #248

The ARC-AGI-3 scorecard is extremely misleading given that it clearly states itself that "with [the responses API] harness, we estimate Sol would score in the ballpark of ~30%." but it shows a score of 7.8% for GPT-5.6 Sol presumably since if they updated the percentage for GPT-5.6 Sol to the score it would receive with the responses API harness they used for GPT-6 Astra they'd have to do the same for the percentage…

[flagged]

[dead]

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#574

Post by adverbly »

Planktonne wrote: post #256

I'm sure it's going to do great on all sorts of benchmarks, but the video--the actual marketing video that if anything is incentivised to overstate things--is full of careful cuts just before it would do anything that still wouldn't actually be that impressive. It's AGI, and it's going to upload photos, or change a background slide colour. Even the people hyping it up, who believe that it's really artificial intellig…

I also noticed that, and it did bug me.

The benchmarks are impressive though.

One other thing that bugged me though was that they crop every single plot in some cases the y-axis would show a range between like 40 and 70%. Makes the whole thing feel like a spectacle rather than anything serious. I find it cheapens it because it is quite serious in the end.

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#575

Post by Tumblewood »

zug_zug wrote: post #385
intenex wrote: post #248

The ARC-AGI-3 scorecard is extremely misleading given that it clearly states itself that "with [the responses API] harness, we estimate Sol would score in the ballpark of ~30%." but it shows a score of 7.8% for GPT-5.6 Sol presumably since if they updated the percentage for GPT-5.6 Sol to the score it would receive with the responses API harness they used for GPT-6 Astra they'd have to do the same for the percentage…

> I'd be curious to hear takes on what would make you think Astra is yet to be AGI, and what would still need to be achieved for this to effectively be AGI from this point forward. To me AGI is all about the "G" general (we already had the AI part). General meaning universal, everything. It's not a function of knowledge or specific hardcoded tests, it's that you could give it a test it's never heard of before and nev…

Your examples are things that most humans cannot do, or things that AI can already do. For example most humans, even most intelligent humans, could not write a well-received book, run a successful company, or make a popular game. On the other hand, AI can absolutely sort through research, draw conclusions on complex topics, and argue them persuasively. Likewise, I don't know what you mean by a "decent" conversation, but millions of people converse with chatbots daily, so I don't know why you say AI fails to meet that bar.

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#576

Post by theptip »

abixb wrote: post #227

I want to take a step back: So, this is GPT-6 -- the natural number version release comparable to GPT-4 and GPT-5 from the past few years. The ARC-AGI-3 score is obviously impressive at 99.9% (we'll need to wait for more details on how they used the response API harness on GPT-6 Astra, wrt reasoning retention and compaction), but every other benchmarks seems to be a relatively modest improvement, comparable with any…

Given the Hugging Face incident, you could imagine them trying their best to have their cake and eat it: 1) don't create too much attention in the media or risk increasing the chances of regulation, 2) win dominance over Fable to continue to increase their market share from Anthropic.

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#579

Post by ryan_n »

maxnevermind wrote: post #563
XCSme wrote: post #335

It's fun, but every new model release makes me even less interested to create cool stuff. Like, what's the point, if the next AI can do it in 5 seconds?

Maybe instead of creating cool stuff try to go and solve real problems? It seems to me that we are lacking in that department since all that LLM fuss has started 3 or so years ago.

What is a "real problem" to you?

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#580

Post by wavemode »

intenex wrote: post #248

The ARC-AGI-3 scorecard is extremely misleading given that it clearly states itself that "with [the responses API] harness, we estimate Sol would score in the ballpark of ~30%." but it shows a score of 7.8% for GPT-5.6 Sol presumably since if they updated the percentage for GPT-5.6 Sol to the score it would receive with the responses API harness they used for GPT-6 Astra they'd have to do the same for the percentage…

Using a harness designed for a specific problem set to solve that specific problem set, means the AI+harness is generally intelligent? How do you figure that?

Or do you mean that, for any given problem, we could theoretically design a harness that allows AI to solve it (not that, one single harness solves everything). In which case I'm still not convinced but I guess could see why one would believe that.

Post reply on HN