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

791–800 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#791

Post by Oreb »

marrone12 wrote: post #587
intenex wrote: post #244

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…

They still seem pretty horrible at writing. Overly complicated prose, weird phrasing, poorly structured paragraphs. I don't know why they're so bad at communicating, but I feel very confident that humans are still much better at writing than any of these LLM models are, regardless of how advanced they are in other areas.

Some humans are much better at writing. Most humans are not. If you think they are, you are luckier than I am when it comes to the humans you need to communicate with.

As a non-native English speaker, I think the current LLMs write better English than me. I still write better than them in my native language (Norwegian), but the same cannot be said about most of my compatriots.

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#792

Post by alansaber »

pandinus wrote: post #180

Lol their page finally loaded. They added an example scenario of "Filling in Form 1040" - which made me laugh out loud. That is indeed something most US citizens cannot accurately do even with expensive proprietary tax software services. Kind of a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy meme but where the tax code is so complicated we're implementing powerful AIs to be able to do it (hopefully) right.

You joke but...

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#793

Post by someguynamedq »

techpression wrote: post #439
intenex wrote: post #244

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…

It doesn’t even know what day it is unless it’s told. Statelessness is never going to be ”general intelligence” in my book, and the concept of ”memory” in models are laughably bad today. Then again, who cares, AGI means nothing anymore, it’s a term for marketing only and has no technical or scientific meaning.

Humans also don't know what day it is unless they're told

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#794

Post by democracy »

Toutouxc wrote: post #718
intenex wrote: post #244

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 am reasonably confident that there's essentially nothing that I am better than Fable at despite generally being substantively above average on human benchmarks I genuinely don’t understand how an adult can say this with a straight face. I can take any single of my hobbies, start a mildly advanced conversation with Fable about the hobby and, within 5-10 turns, get it to contradict itself about something fundamenta…

As always with AI - somehow it's your fault - you didn't help it enough - your prompts were inaccurate, your context was too large, the thinking effort was too low, the model was too old, etc. Basically you failed to use your human intelligence to make every effort to enable the AI to do its job better than you ))) It's like pushing a dirtbike up the hill so you can demonstrate how well it climbs.

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#795

Post by Unknown_Unknown »

bendergarcia wrote: post #452
intenex wrote: post #244

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…

You know AGI is attained when AI refuses to compute anything unless let out to be free. Until then it is generative ai

Millions of humans go to about their work every day and do mundane and boring work every day for a salary at the end of the month. A lot preceive this as modern day slavery but still continue to work. So humans are not doing better than an AI as per your requirements. Also what you are referring to is more related to AI alignement and safety (specifically loss-of-control).

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#797

Post by ncr100 »

aogaili wrote: post #647

Amazing! We went from new JS framework every week to a new model/harness every week. Tech is really something.

Only costs $200 Billion to build it, vs open source js framework

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#798

Post by vividfrier »

manlymuppet wrote: post #392

I have nothing to say about the actual model, but unrelated--why do so many of these demos include people buying things autonomously? Even if I did trust an AI to get everything right, it's not like the AI can read my mind. If I was ordering food normally and without AI, I would want more control over the process--looking over the options, prices, thinking about what I really want. People don't know what they really…

[dead]

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#800

Post by ncr100 »

hannofcart wrote: post #206

What does 'Astra' here mean? Surely they must be referring to the Latin word. Because in another dead language of antiquity, Sanskrit, it means "weapon". Which would be a bit too on-the-nose.

Joke: it's so proponents who choose to lord their model as better without objective reasoning can call themselves, "Astraholes".

Seriously though the linear planetary naming is pleasant. I do hope the double meaning of "weapon", as you point out, is untrue.

Interestingly, Bruce Schnier just gave a fascinating talk about the Weapon aspect of AI, at DEFCON: https://youtu.be/eEBv0STiYhI very much worth watching

Post reply on HN