281–290 of 687 posts
I've long maintained that the real indicator that AGI is imminent is that public availability stops being a thing. If you truly believed you had a superhuman, godlike mind in your thrall, renting it out for $20/month would be the last thing you would choose to do with it.
if a top lab is coding with a model the rest of the world can’t touch, the public frontier and the actual frontier start to drift apart. That gap is a thing worth watching.
> Claude Mythos Preview’s large increase in capabilities has led us to decide not to make it generally available. Shame. Back to business as usual then.
I for one applaud them for being cautious.
The real reason they aren't releasing it yet is probably it eats TPU for breakfast, lunch, and dinner and inbetween.
Combined results (Claude Mythos / Claude Opus 4.6 / GPT-5.4 / Gemini 3.1 Pro) SWE-bench Verified: 93.9% / 80.8% / — / 80.6% SWE-bench Pro: 77.8% / 53.4% / 57.7% / 54.2% SWE-bench Multilingual: 87.3% / 77.8% / — / — SWE-bench Multimodal: 59.0% / 27.1% / — / — Terminal-Bench 2.0: 82.0% / 65.4% / 75.1% / 68.5% GPQA Diamond: 94.5% / 91.3% / 92.8% / 94.3% MMMLU: 92.7% / 91.1% / — / 92.6–93.6% USAMO: 97.6% / 42.3% / 95.2%…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Given that for a number of these benchmarks, it seems to be barely competitive with the previous gen We're not reading the same numbers I think. Compared to Opus 4.6, it's a big jump nearly in every single bench GP posted. They're "only" catching up to Google's Gemini on GPQA and MMMLU but they're still beating their own Opus 4.6 results on these two. This sounds like a much better model than Opus 4.6.
> We're not reading the same numbers I think. We must not be. That's why I listed out the ones where it is barely competitive from @babelfish's table, which itself is extracted from Pg 186 & 187 of the System Card, which has the comparison with Opus 4.6, GPT 5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro. Sure, it may be better than Opus 4.6 on some of those, but barely achieves a small increase over GPT-5.4 on the ones I called out.
You are the only person with this take on hackernews, everyone else "this is a massive a jump". Fwiwi, the data you list shows the biggest jump I remember for mythos
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's speculation that next Tuesday will be a big day for OpenAI and possibly GPT 6. Anthropic showed their hand today.
My understanding is GPT 6 works via synaptic space reasoning... which I find terrifying. I hope if true, OpenAI does some safety testing on that, beyond what they normally do.
> We study a novel language model architecture that is capable of scaling test-time computation by implicitly reasoning in latent space. Our model works by iterating a recurrent block, thereby unrolling to arbitrary depth at test-time. This stands in contrast to mainstream reasoning models that scale up compute by producing more tokens. Unlike approaches based on chain-of-thought, our approach does not require any specialized training data, can work with small context windows, and can capture types of reasoning that are not easily represented in words. We scale a proof-of-concept model to 3.5 billion parameters and 800 billion tokens. We show that the resulting model can improve its performance on reasoning benchmarks, sometimes dramatically, up to a computation load equivalent to 50 billion parameters.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.05171>
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been increasingly "freaking out" since about 3 - 4 years ago and it seems that the pessimistic scenario is materializing. It looks like it will be over for software engineers in a not so distant future. In January 2025 I said that I expect software engineers to be replaced in 2 years (pessimistic) to 5 years (optimistic). Right now I'm guessing 1 to 3 years.
I assure you it will soon become very clear that mass job losses are one of the least concerning side effects of developing the magic "everything that can plausibly been done within the constraints of physics is now possible" machine. We're opening a can of worms which I don't think most people have the imagination to understand the horrors of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could help you build an AGI if someone else has already built AGI and published it on GitHub.
I see this statement all the time and it's just strange to me. Yes, the LLMs struggle to form unique ideas - but so do we. Most advancements in human history are incremental. Built on the shoulders of millions of other incremental advancements. What i don't understand is how we quantify our ability to actually create something novel, truly and uniquely novel. We're discussing the LLMs inability to do that, yet i don'…
It should be clear from working with LLMs over the past 4 years that they are not consciousness.
Andrej's appearance on the Dwarkesh podcast is great.