Why the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus is interesting and important for AI

Post by vba616 » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 3:53 AM UTC

  Person: Pick up a big red block.
  Computer: OK.
  Person: Grasp the pyramid.
  Computer: I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHICH PYRAMID YOU MEAN.
  Person (changing their mind): Find a block which is taller than the one you are holding and put it into the box.
  Computer: BY "IT", I ASSUME YOU MEAN THE BLOCK WHICH IS TALLER THAN THE ONE I AM HOLDING.
  Computer: OK.
  Person: What does the box contain?
  Computer: THE BLUE PYRAMID AND THE BLUE BLOCK.
  Person: What is the pyramid supported by?
  Computer: THE BOX.
  Person: How many blocks are not in the box?
  Computer: FOUR OF THEM.
  Person: Is at least one of them narrower than the one which i told you to pick up?
  Computer: YES, THE RED CUBE.
  Person: Is it supported?
  Computer: YES, BY THE TABLE.
  Person: Can the table pick up blocks?
  Computer: NO.
  Person: Can a pyramid be supported by a block?
  Computer: YES.
  Person: Can a pyramid support a pyramid?
  Computer: I DON'T KNOW.
  Person: Stack up two pyramids.
  Computer: I CAN'T.
  Person: Will you please stack up both of the red blocks and either a green cube or a pyramid?
  Computer: OK.
  Person: Which cube is sitting on the table?
  Computer: THE LARGE GREEN ONE WHICH SUPPORTS THE RED PYRAMID.
  Person: Is there a large block behind a pyramid?
  Computer: YES, THREE OF THEM: A LARGE RED ONE, A LARGE GREEN CUBE, AND THE BLUE ONE.

Post by civilized » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 4:17 AM UTC

vba616 wrote: post #9

civilized wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author's prompts are all perfectly understandable to humans and expressed in a direct and clear way, and the AIs can't understand them. This comment essentially says "the prompt is faulty because the AI didn't answer it correctly". This bakes the correctness of the AI into the tautology that it always answers "good" prompts, which are defined as those it answers correctly.

Well, humans don't know how to determine if a proposition is correct. So it's no surprise we didn't teach AIs yet! Edit: I don't understand why experts say it failed when they "asked it to reason". It doesn't have pictures of TVs on cats to produce variations of, right? How does "reason" enter into it?

Post by taneq » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 5:12 AM UTC

extr wrote: post #3

Why on earth would you tell the model the task in english? The tasks have extremely simple JSON representations that would make for a way, way more natural input. The colorful grids are just to make it easier (for humans) to visualize the symmetries needed. Eg: Here is an (abbreviated) train/test example for task 007bbfb7 from https://github.com/fchollet/ARC/blob/master/data/training/00... "train": [{ "input": [[0, 7…

Post by civilized » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 5:47 AM UTC

taneq wrote: post #16

civilized wrote: post #8

The author mentions that Chollet's ARC tasks contain 200 unreleased "hidden" problems. This set off a light bulb for me: hidden problems are going to be increasingly important for benchmarking AI meaningfully. With RLHF, ChatGPT is memorizing the answer to every problem thrown at it. Eventually it may become impossible to test with any public question bank. We are going to go through a period of fooling ourselves, as…

> then we're going to hit a wall where models are preforming perfectly on benchmarks while still clearly lacking in genuine intelligence More like “and then, as we always do, we’re going to redefine ‘intelligence’ to exclude whatever we don’t want to accept as intelligent.”