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

OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra on ARC-AGI-3

arcprize.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–159 of 159 posts

Re: OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra on ARC-AGI-3

#151

Post by itishappy »

red75prime wrote: post #107
itishappy wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does IQ have to do with intelligence? (Please forgive the flippant response. I believe it cuts to the core of what the parent was intending.)

Is it a serious question? IQ tries to quantify the positive correlation between the results of all intellectual tasks a person takes (AKA positive manifold).

It is, but it was also a rhetorical device!

I wanted to highlight that we're actually looking at a trio of concepts: intelligence, IQ, and value. Strongly correlated concepts, yes, but also meaningfully distinct!

Re: OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra on ARC-AGI-3

#152

Post by spider-mario »

ranyume wrote: post #150
spider-mario wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t follow your logic. “The gifted person is highly intelligent, just not good at deadlifting 500kg” does not diminish the 500kg deadlift and I wouldn’t expect an IQ test to measure it.

Deadlifting 500kg is not a form of intelligence (or it could be under certain scenarios). I carefully chose specific tasks for my comment, because those tasks do reflect a kind of intelligence that's not measured by IQ. I think the key here is to be wary of measurements that promise to capture the whole of what we consider intelligence (ie what people think of with IQs).

No, I don’t think they’re intelligence either.

Re: OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra on ARC-AGI-3

#153

Post by defrost »

slopinthebag wrote: post #148
defrost wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the metric on "average human" from a global population of > 8 billion people .. and why would they score mid on a standardised IQ test skewed toward western education / culture?

Who said anything about IQ tests?

What specific metric did you have in mind for ranking intelligence and determining average intelligence in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49560984

You must have some notion of an argument as to why all the varied attributes of different humans should align to all be "average" in some specific human.

O/wise you'd be peddling sloppy trite aphorisms that don't bear scrutiny.

Re: OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra on ARC-AGI-3

#154

Post by drdeca »

p1esk wrote: post #103
drdeca wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the distinction between these options probably doesn’t matter alll that much if the threshold you’re using is either “random person” or higher? Maybe bump it up to “random educated person”? They are still different concepts of course, but I imagine that once one is achieved, the others aren’t far off.

Ok, but a random educated person will not perform well on vast majority of specialized tasks where professionals operate. A model like Astra probably will beat random educated person performance on majority of specialized tasks. It’s getting close to the level of professionals in many domains, and to genius level on some (e.g. math). I’m just trying to understand the implications of the current frontier model capabil…

Current models can do a variety of tasks that requires substantial expertise for people to do, yes.

But there are also many cognitive tasks that the typical educated person would do better at than these models.

Like, e.g. long-term managing what a vending machine gets stocked with and what prices the items should be sold for. Or, various things like that.

When there are essentially no more tasks like that, then we’ve reached AGI.

Re: OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra on ARC-AGI-3

#155

Post by p1esk »

drdeca wrote: post #154
p1esk wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but a random educated person will not perform well on vast majority of specialized tasks where professionals operate. A model like Astra probably will beat random educated person performance on majority of specialized tasks. It’s getting close to the level of professionals in many domains, and to genius level on some (e.g. math). I’m just trying to understand the implications of the current frontier model capabil…

Current models can do a variety of tasks that requires substantial expertise for people to do, yes. But there are also many cognitive tasks that the typical educated person would do better at than these models. Like, e.g. long-term managing what a vending machine gets stocked with and what prices the items should be sold for. Or, various things like that. When there are essentially no more tasks like that, then we’ve…

Interesting, you think a random educated person would beat Astra on Vending-Bench 2? Honestly I would not make that bet, I think it would be 50/50.

Re: OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra on ARC-AGI-3

#156

Post by mercer »

ranyume wrote: post #108
mdp2021 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have always been very aware that IQ does not measure all skills - nonetheless, it does measure one. Nobody says that the IQ test would "measure intelligence". We know it does test a form of it.

I said it's a bad measure of intelligence and it seems that we agree.

bad in relation to what?

Re: OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra on ARC-AGI-3

#158

Post by slopinthebag »

defrost wrote: post #153
slopinthebag wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said anything about IQ tests?

What specific metric did you have in mind for ranking intelligence and determining average intelligence in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49560984 You must have some notion of an argument as to why all the varied attributes of different humans should align to all be "average" in some specific human. O/wise you'd be peddling sloppy trite aphorisms that don't bear scrutiny.

average still means something regardless of how you can define it.

Re: OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra on ARC-AGI-3

#159

Post by scotty79 »

scotty79 wrote: post #118
shric wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect my IQ isn’t quite high enough to join Mensa but I’ve always flirted with the idea of trying to join and getting in just to see what a group of Mensa people are like.

We are basically random. 2% of population by top IQ test result has pretty much very similar distribution in all aspects to 100% of the population. It's not a high bar to be fastest processing one among 50 people.

If you calculate this properly, a Mensa member has about a cointoss chance to be the "smartest" among random group of 35 people (not 50).

Given that they are probably rarely in groups of purely random people, if you are Mensa member and you are in a group of dozen people (for example in professional setting) you'd probably have a 50/50 chance of not being the one with the highest IQ there.

Post reply on HN