4 ms·

A human can also use the same tools if it wasn't for the rules or fair play. They should've simply redone the test.

ceph_ 1y ago
The AI should be forced to use the same rules as the human. Not the other way around. The AI shouldn't be using outside resources.
- bscphil 1y ago
  I think that's part of the point they're making, hence "They should've simply redone the test."
- voxic11 1y ago
  Another rule bans "using third-party software or scripts in order to gain an unfair advantage over other players." So is it even possible for O3 to beat another player while complying with the rules?
  - ben_w 1y ago
    If a player uses such a model, the model is third-party and the player is cheating. But: when a specific model is itself under test, I would say that during the test it becomes "first" (or second?) party rather than "third".
    - voxic11 1y ago
      I think third-party here means not produced by GeoGuesser rather than not produced by the player.
krferriter 1y ago
An AI being better than a human at doing a google search and then skimming a bunch of pages to find location-related terms isn't as interesting of a result.
- inerte 1y ago
  How the heck is not? Computers are looking into screenshots and searching the internet to support their "thinking", that's amazing! Have we become so used to AI and what was impossible 6 months ago is shruggable today? I've being doing this MIND-Dash diet lately and it's amazing I can just take a picture of whatever (nutritional info / ingredients are perfect for that) and just ask if it fits my plan and it tells me back into what bucket it falls, with detailed breakdown of macros in support of some additional goals I have (muscle building for powerlifting). It's amazing! And it does in 2 minutes passively what it would take me 5-10 active search.
  - godelski 1y ago
    In the same way a calculator performing arithmetic faster than humans isn't impressive. The same way running regex over a million lines and the computer beating a human in search isn't impressive
    - ludwik 1y ago
      Neither is impressive solely because we've gotten used to them. Both were mind-blowing back in the day. When it comes to AI - and LLMs in particular - there’s a large cohort of people who seem determined to jump straight from "impossible and will never happen in our lifetime" to "obvious and not impressive", without leaving any time to actually be impressed by the technological achievement. I find that pretty baffling.
      - godelski 1y ago
        I agree, but without removing search you cannot decouple. Has it embedded a regex method and is just leveraging that? Or is it doing something more? Yes, even the regex is still impressive but it is less impressive that doing something more complicated and understanding context and more depth.
    - rowanG077 1y ago
      I think both are very impressive, world shattering capabilities. Just because they have become normalized doesn't make it any less impressive in my view.
arandomhuman 1y ago
But then they couldn't make a click bait title for the article.

The AI should be forced to use the same rules as the human. Not the other way around. The AI shouldn't be using outside resources.

bscphil 1y ago
I think that's part of the point they're making, hence "They should've simply redone the test."
voxic11 1y ago
Another rule bans "using third-party software or scripts in order to gain an unfair advantage over other players." So is it even possible for O3 to beat another player while complying with the rules?
- ben_w 1y ago
  If a player uses such a model, the model is third-party and the player is cheating. But: when a specific model is itself under test, I would say that during the test it becomes "first" (or second?) party rather than "third".
  - voxic11 1y ago
    I think third-party here means not produced by GeoGuesser rather than not produced by the player.

krferriter 1y ago

An AI being better than a human at doing a google search and then skimming a bunch of pages to find location-related terms isn't as interesting of a result.

inerte 1y ago
How the heck is not? Computers are looking into screenshots and searching the internet to support their "thinking", that's amazing! Have we become so used to AI and what was impossible 6 months ago is shruggable today? I've being doing this MIND-Dash diet lately and it's amazing I can just take a picture of whatever (nutritional info / ingredients are perfect for that) and just ask if it fits my plan and it tells me back into what bucket it falls, with detailed breakdown of macros in support of some additional goals I have (muscle building for powerlifting). It's amazing! And it does in 2 minutes passively what it would take me 5-10 active search.
- godelski 1y ago
  In the same way a calculator performing arithmetic faster than humans isn't impressive. The same way running regex over a million lines and the computer beating a human in search isn't impressive
  - ludwik 1y ago
    Neither is impressive solely because we've gotten used to them. Both were mind-blowing back in the day. When it comes to AI - and LLMs in particular - there’s a large cohort of people who seem determined to jump straight from "impossible and will never happen in our lifetime" to "obvious and not impressive", without leaving any time to actually be impressed by the technological achievement. I find that pretty baffling.
    - godelski 1y ago
      I agree, but without removing search you cannot decouple. Has it embedded a regex method and is just leveraging that? Or is it doing something more? Yes, even the regex is still impressive but it is less impressive that doing something more complicated and understanding context and more depth.
  - rowanG077 1y ago
    I think both are very impressive, world shattering capabilities. Just because they have become normalized doesn't make it any less impressive in my view.

arandomhuman 1y ago

But then they couldn't make a click bait title for the article.