861–870 of 1001 posts
I'm going to call it. By 2030 all software is done and complete. But we are going to have more and new jobs.
Like "fifth-rank junior assistant spouse in a comfort harem of an ultra-rich person".
gpt-6-astra-ultraspeed when?
I dropped my claude subscription a few months ago, though I kept some credits to do this and that with claude, thinking that claude might do better for some tasks. A few days ago they were all expired. It feels like it’s time to let claude go.
What is going to become of life for those of us who do not work at AI labs and are unlikely to be hired by AI labs, despite all the years we put into learning coding, math, etc, as we were told to do? Those of us who made the mistake of studying anything other than machine learning. How will we make a living? (We don't live in a world that seems likely to distribute gains widely instead of largely to the handful of a…
I think the thing I'm most excited about is the increase in _user prompting_. If I give a poorly constrained/ambiguous prompt, I don't want the model one-shotting assumptions left and right. The demos of Fable/GPT-6 are impressive, but "real AGI" should act more like a collaborator than either a peon or overachiever. It's a tough balance to get right, and although this has been possible to achieve with additional pro…
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…
The tone of the marketing video is a bit irritating to me as someone who has been laid off and feels cheated and fearful of AI. It shows people who seem to have very full and rich lives, and the reason they do is because they use ChatGPT. These are the people smart enough to say things like "do what needs to be done", or "change the background to make it look better"--insights like these are why they make the big buc…
And everyone _got along with it_.
And in a sense, we're still doing just that (ask the other 2/3th of the world to explain why your standards of living are above theirs.)
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…
But I think it has the correct idea of going from basic upwards instead of the opposite trend of trying to see intelligence in LLMs solving things few if any humans can fully understand themselves, like complex proofs in esoteric mathematics. Instead, consider that at one point in humanity's history math itself simply did not exist in any meaningful fashion, and we created/discovered it out of nothing. For more basic than said complex proofs, yet far more demonstrative of a sort of generalized intelligence.
But even if we don't want to go that way, I think the above leads to a reasonable prediction. If we ever reach AGI we should expect to see revolutionary leaps in essentially every domain imaginable. No human is capable of retaining more than a completely negligible chunk of all we know in our mind. A human of reasonable intelligence paired with omniscience (at least of what has been discovered by humans thus far) would almost certainly lead to the ability to connect multiple dots that we're missing all in very short order, which in turn would likely recurse upon itself to connect even more.
The only way I can see that this would not be the case is if we lack the data/knowledge to produce more breakthroughs at the current point in time, but I think that seems improbable to the point that this possibility can be near discarded.
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…
In this link from two weeks ago, somebody pointed Claude Fable 5 (Max) at a Bongard problem and it made up an answer that has an obvious counterexample.
I don't have access to any paid models, but this is my experience with the free models as well -- either they one-shot the problem or they make up a wrong or incoherent solution. I can't solve every Bongard problem either (and in fact I couldn't solve the one Fable got wrong, and the "correct answer" looks unsatisfying to me), but I don't make up wrong answers.
Would be curious to see how GPT-6 does.