121–130 of 737 posts
I’ll wait to see third party verification and/or use it myself before judging. There’s a lot of incentives right now to hype things up for OpenAI.
What? This is a claim with all the trust-worthiness of OpenAI's claim. I mean I can claim anything I want at this point and it would still be just as trust-worthy as OpenAI's claim, with exactly zero details about anything else than "we did it, promise".
Noam Brown: > this isn’t an IMO-specific model. It’s a reasoning LLM that incorporates new experimental general-purpose techniques. > it’s also more efficient [than o1 or o3] with its thinking. And there’s a lot of room to push the test-time compute and efficiency further. > As fast as recent AI progress has been, I fully expect the trend to continue. Importantly, I think we’re close to AI substantially contributing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Impressive prediction, especially pre-ChatGPT. Compare to Gary Marcus 3 months ago: https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/reports-of-llms-mastering-... We may certainly hope Eliezer's other predictions don't prove so well-calibrated.
My understanding is that Eliezer more or less thinks it's over for humans.
I believe this company used to present its results and approach in academic papers with enough details so that it could be reproduced by third parties. Now it is just doing a bunch of tweets?
And many other things
>GPT5 soon
>it will not be as good as this secret(?) model
Earlier quoted context omitted.
- AI competing is "wholly unfair" - "[AI is] far away from being substantially being better than MCTs" ^ pick only one
Running MCTS over algorithms is the part that might be considered unfair if used in competition with humans.
There’s so much to do at inference time. This result could not have been achieved without the substrate of general models. Its not like Go or protein folding. You need the collective public global knowledge of society to build on. And yes, there’s enough left for ten years of exploration.
More importantly, the stakes are high. There may be zero day attacks, biological weapons, and more that could be discovered. The race is on.
Some previous predictions: In 2021 Paul Christiano wrote he would update from 30% to "50% chance of hard takeoff" if we saw an IMO gold by 2025. He thought there was an 8% chance of this happening. Eliezer Yudkowsky said "at least 16%". Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sWLLdG6DWJEy3CH7n/imo-challe...
While I usually enjoy seeing these discussions, I think they are really pushing the usefulness of bayesian statistics. If one dude says the chance for an outcome is 8% and another says it's 16% and the outcome does occur, they were both pretty wrong, even though it might seem like the one who guessed a few % higher might have had a better belief system. Now if one of them had said 90% while the other said 8% or 16%,…