[flagged]
GPT-6 Astra
971–980 of 1001 posts
Re: GPT-6 Astra
#972"""OpenAI called the model a "generational leap" for areas such as cybersecurity, professional work, software engineering, and science, with the company's president Greg Brockman saying that it could eventually be seen as the arrival of artificial general intelligence""" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPT-6_Astra according to Sam Altman from last year, an LLM should 'solve quantum gravity', if it is to count as AGI. D…
I think that would be more of ASI than AGI, AGI is a smart human, I'd say we're pretty close if not already there for most stuff we've been focusing on like coding. ASI is a super genius, beyond the smartest human, and we're nowhere near that. But as we've already seen with LLMs you don't need to wait for ASI to solve hard problems in math and physics.
I find the distinction between AGI and ASI to be a red herring. In my mind, we humans already have enough intelligence to basically solve any problem given enough time and a 'scratch pad'. It's sort of like Turing-completeness but for intelligence.
Saying that a computer exhibits artificial-SUPER-intelligence feels a little like saying that one universal Turing machine is more expressive than another universal Turing machine. The thing that sets the two Turing machines apart is not how expressive they are but how quickly and efficiently they can arrive at the given output.
It's hard for me to imagine a task that ASI could complete which a human with enough time and determination couldn't also complete, although I can imagine such tasks for dogs which don't exhibit the same level of intelligence as humans. Maybe I'm too human-centric and naive. Maybe there are other tasks out there that are beyond human intelligence even given infinite time.
If, however, my view of intelligence is correct, then the distinction between ASI and AGI is illusory, and the real distinction that we would see between systems is just their speed, efficiency, determination, etc.
In my mind, once we achieve AGI, we immediately have ASI: just run that AGI on a faster computer, across many nodes, etc. Instead of having humans solve quantum gravity over the next 1000 years, just have AGI solve it over the next month.
Re: GPT-6 Astra
#973I feel that for some time now, the biggest constraint when working with models is not their intelligence, but their speed. It does not matter how smart the model is, it will make mistakes, because the instructions are ambiguous and new facts are found during implementation. The biggest problem I've had working with software developers has always been the lag between seeing the results and steering towards the right d…
AI models do not live and learn - it's worse. They actually get DUMMER if you don't start with a clean slate. This is important. One has to curate the context carefully.
Try codex! This is not the case there at all.
Re: GPT-6 Astra
#974I 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…
>>> The demos of Fable/GPT-6 are impressive, but "real AGI" should act more like a collaborator than either a peon or overachiever. I don't really agree. The thing that makes Fable feel like an actual collaborator is its ability to sus out your real intent when you give ambiguous instructions. It's really good at it. I watched some reviews today and came way with the impression that Astra is not better than Sol in th…
It shouldn't make this assumption, it should say "because xyz. You want it committed?".
Re: GPT-6 Astra
#975Finally, OpenAI has a Fable/Mythos class model. 5.6 Sol felt like 5.5 on steroids, probably just a different checkpoint with a lot more RL post training. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some conceptual similarities to the kind of latent reasoning Anthropic sees in claude's J-space, although those aren't the same thing. Recurrent/looped transformers themselves aren't a new concept, but it's interesting to finally…
> Canceling my Anthropic Max sub when this ships. At this point, it reads like people are cancelling old ones and getting new subscriptions every two to three days, whenever a new ,model drops, and quite possibly by the end of the week they are back to the old provider while still having active subscriptions with at least two to three others. Interesting times.
Yeah I have a main $100 sub, a bunch of $20 subs and sometimes another simultaneous $100 when a really major model happens to drop. For the most part it seems better to have multiple subscriptions than a single $200-$300 one to stay more in touch with state of the art and get a feel for what's good at what.
Re: GPT-6 Astra
#976I 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…
I think that one thing that "thinkers", academics and other smart people who LIKE to think/select/choose forget is that the majority of the population is not wired this way.
Most people go about their day absolutely minimizing the amount of mental energy they have to spend. They have priorities like kids, work, family, groceries, etc. If anything here can be automated its a fat win in their life. I have friends that are loving the features where meals are planned for them, food is home delivered, Uber is auto ordered, trip plans are made, etc. They don't mind paying more just to reduce mental load. Its a huhe market.
Re: GPT-6 Astra
#977I can’t help but notice how much this echoes Francois Chollet’s On the Measure of Intelligence: https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.01547 Most of frontier-model progress still looks like skill acquisition optimization: broader benchmark coverage and performance, more domains absorbed into the training distribution, and increasingly strong performance within that surface area. It seems more about coverage-driven competence. So…
You are conflating multiple things. 1) First, you are talking about positive forward transfer in continual learning. I've been giving talks for the past 6-7 years about how that community (I was one of the founders) went astray and wasn't focusing enough on that topic, but continual learning of the kind you are thinking isn't in any of these systems right now. I think some people left the Grok team to make a start-up…
"Given that this is HN, and a non-trivial number of us have ADHD, creativity is positively correlated with ADHD." Is this a statement of fact? As someone with ADHD and pretty confident in my creativity, I still believe this is much more cope than fact(which could be more a self-doubt thing than anything else).
Further, if there is a correlation, I'd bet it's not so much an intrinsic "creativity" trait, but more effectively higher creativity because more trials. That is, along the lines of Chollet's paper, a measure of creativity should be based on a fixed budget with fixed knowledge.
Among many other possibilities I haven't considered, perhaps another mechanism could be that because ADHD people spend more time thinking in less goal-oriented ways and mixing thoughts on accident, perhaps we do in fact gain some learned creativity via experience with vagueness[1]? But that might also imply that part of creativity is actually being able to diffuse more freely through thought space and lowering the barrier to attempted connections between ideas. That lower barrier leads to less likelihood of any "collision" being meaningful but maybe it's overcome by higher collision rates? Or maybe effectively higher order (not just pairwise) collisions?
Disclaimer in case it's not obvious: I don't know any of the literature on what creativity even means or how it's quantified.
[1] Which is me injecting an assumption that creativity ~= connecting things with no obvious or well-troden reasoning path between them.
edit -- oops just looked at your profile after seeing someone elses comment. I assume you are stating a fact then, leaving original anyway
Re: GPT-6 Astra
#978Finally, OpenAI has a Fable/Mythos class model. 5.6 Sol felt like 5.5 on steroids, probably just a different checkpoint with a lot more RL post training. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some conceptual similarities to the kind of latent reasoning Anthropic sees in claude's J-space, although those aren't the same thing. Recurrent/looped transformers themselves aren't a new concept, but it's interesting to finally…
> Canceling my Anthropic Max sub when this ships. At this point, it reads like people are cancelling old ones and getting new subscriptions every two to three days, whenever a new ,model drops, and quite possibly by the end of the week they are back to the old provider while still having active subscriptions with at least two to three others. Interesting times.
Especially with these big models chewing up limits fast, I feel good about simultaneously having an Anthropic sub, an OpenAI sub, and an Opencode balance. The models also seem to catch things when code reviewing each other that they don't always catch when a new instance of the same model does a review.
Re: GPT-6 Astra
#979It'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?
listen to the DHH round two at Lex Friedman. Dropped a few days ago. Its inspiring
Re: GPT-6 Astra
#980great, I can see now we've moved onto versioning wars. Galaxy S5 vs iPhone 5 all over again