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

François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 230 posts

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#201

Post by kelseyfrog »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #176
kelseyfrog wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you figure goal generation and supervised goal training are interchangeable?

Layman warning! But "at sufficient scale", like with learning-to-learn, I'd expect it to pick up largely meta-patterns along with (if not rather than) behavioral habits, especially if the goal is left open, because strategies generalize across goals and thus get reinforcement from every instance of goal pursuit during base training. But also my intuition is that humans are "trained on goals" and then reverse-engineer…

I'm not sure. In my experience humans without explicit goal generation training tend to under perform at generating goals. In other words, our out-of-distribution performance for goal generation is poor.

Noticing this, frameworks like SMART[1], provide explicit generation rules. The existence of explicit frameworks is evidence that humans tend to perform worse than expected at extracting implicit structure from goals they've observed.

1. Independent of the effectiveness of such frameworks

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#202

Post by shwaj »

brcmthrowaway wrote: post #164
Bjorkbat wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall it as less an evolution and more a complete tonal shift the moment o3 was evaluated on ARC-AGI. I remember on Twitter Sam made some dumb post suggesting they had beaten the benchmark internally and Francois calling him out on his vagueposting. Soon as they publicly released the scores, it was like he was all-in on reasoning. Which I have to admit I was kind of disappointed by.

What exactly is "reasoning"?

In this context I believe it refers to models that are trained to generate an internal dialogue that is then fed back in as additional input. This cycle might be performed several times before generating the final output text.

This is in contrast to the way that GPT-2/3/“original 4” work, which is by repeatedly generating the next finalized token based on the full dialogue thus far.

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#203

Post by svantana »

gonzobonzo wrote: post #67
qoez wrote: post #4

I feel like I'm the only one who isn't convinced getting a high score on the ARC eval test means we have AGI. It's mostly about pattern matching (and some of it ambiguous even for humans what the actual true response aught to be). It's like how in humans there's lots of different 'types' of intelligence, and just overfitting on IQ tests doesn't in my mind convince me a person is actually that smart.

I agree with you but I'll go a step further - these benchmarks are a good example of how far we are from AGI. A good base test would be to give a manager a mixed team of remote workers, half being human and half being AI, and seeing if the manager or any of the coworkers would be able to tell the difference. We wouldn't be able to say that AI that passed that test would necessarily be AGI, since we would have to test…

Why even bother with the people in the mix? Just tell the AGI: make as much money as you can in 6 months. Preferably without breaking any laws.

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#204

Post by amanaplanacanal »

umeshunni wrote: post #165
goatlover wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can the AI wash your dishes, fold your laundry, take out your trash, meet a friend for dinner or the other thousand things you might do in an average day when you're not interacting with text on a screen? You know stuff that humans have done way before there were computers and screens.

Yeah, I'm convinced that the biggest difference between the current generation of AIs we have and humans is that AIs don't have the range of tool use and interaction with the physical environment that humans do. And that's what's actually holding AGI back not access to more data.

Yes that, plus an inability to learn because it has no memory. If you correct it today, will it remember the correction next week, or next year?

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#205

Post by lern_too_spel »

EigenLord wrote: post #175

I've been thinking lately about how AGI runs up against the No Free Lunch Theorem. This is what irritates me: science is not determining the narrative. Money is. I highly recommend mathematician David Wolpert's work on the topic. I think he inadvertently proved that ASI is physically impossible. Certainly he proved that AOI (artificial omniscient intelligence) is impossible. One thing he showed is that you can't have…

ASI is as different from AOI as BB(8) is from infinity. The impossibility of AOI says bubkis about ASI.

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#206

Post by davidclark »

cubefox wrote: post #154
sweezyjeezy wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW the original ARC was published in 2019, just after GPT-2 but a while before GPT-3. I work in the field, I think that discussing AGI seriously is actually kind of a recent thing (I'm not sure I ever heard the term 'AGI' until a few years ago). I'm not saying I know he didn't feel that, but he doesn't talk in such terms in the original paper.

> We argue that ARC can be used to measure a human-like form of general fluid intelligence and that it enables fair general intelligence comparisons between AI systems and humans. https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.01547

> It is important to note that ARC is a work in progress, not a definitive solution; it does not fit all of the requirements listed in II.3.2, and it features a number of key weaknesses…

Page 53

> The study of general artificial intelligence is a field still in its infancy, and we do not wish to convey the impression that we have provided a definitive solution to the problem of characterizing and measuring the intelligence held by an AI system.

Page 56

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#207

Post by [deleted] »

fvdessen wrote: post #137
MPSimmons wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we actually even have a good definition of "This is what AGI is, and here are the stationary goal posts that, when these thresholds are met, then we will have AGI". If you judged human intelligence by our AI standards, then would humans even pass as Natural General Intelligence? Human intelligence tests are constantly changing, being invalidated, and rerolled as well. I maintain that today's modern LLMs…

Turing test is not really that meaningful anymore because you can always detect the AI by text and timing patterns rather than actual intelligence. In fact the most reliable way to test for AI is probably to ask trivia questions on various niche topics, I don't think any human has as much breath of general knowledge as current AIs.

[deleted]

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#208

Post by cornel_io »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #20
qoez wrote: post #4

I feel like I'm the only one who isn't convinced getting a high score on the ARC eval test means we have AGI. It's mostly about pattern matching (and some of it ambiguous even for humans what the actual true response aught to be). It's like how in humans there's lots of different 'types' of intelligence, and just overfitting on IQ tests doesn't in my mind convince me a person is actually that smart.

Getting a high score on ARC doesn't mean we have AGI and Chollet has always said as much AFAIK, it's meant to push the AI research space in a positive direction. Being able to solve ARC problems is probably a pre-requisite to AGI. It's a directional push into the fog of war, with the claim being that we should explore that area because we expect it's relevant to building AGI.

I'm all for benchmarks that push the field forward, but ARC problems seem to be difficult for reasons having less to do with intelligence and more about having a text system that works reliably with rasterized pixel data presented line by line. Most people would score 0 on it if they were shown the data the way an LLM sees it, these problems only seem easy to us because there are visualizers slapped on top.

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#209

Post by aktuel »

jenadine wrote: post #174
QuadmasterXLII wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current definition and goal of AGI is “Artificial intelligence good enough to replace every employee for cheaper” and much of the difficulty people have in defining it is cognitive dissonance about the goal.

Or this definition of AGI from OpenAI and Microsoft: > [AGI is achieved when] AI systems that can generate at least $100 billion in profits. https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/26/microsoft-and-openai-have-...

That is a truly retarded definition. And so revealing. Just perfect quant slop.

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#210

Post by programd »

staunton wrote: post #193
fvdessen wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turing test is not really that meaningful anymore because you can always detect the AI by text and timing patterns rather than actual intelligence. In fact the most reliable way to test for AI is probably to ask trivia questions on various niche topics, I don't think any human has as much breath of general knowledge as current AIs.

> you can always detect the AI by text and timing patterns I see no reason why an AI couldn't be trained on human data to fake all of that. If noone has bothered so far, that's because pretty much all commercial applications of this would be illegal or at least leading to major reputational damage when exposed.

You may want to look at this: A foundation model to predict and capture human cognition

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09215-4

Post reply on HN