3 ms·

99.9% with the right harness? Ok, we're at AGI then. Prediction: We will now see the goalposts moved towards "well, a human costs less / is more efficient" -

99.9% with the right harness? Ok, we're at AGI then. Prediction: We will now see the goalposts moved towards "well, a human costs less / is more efficient" - that will prevail for a few months until they come up with some other test that humans can do easily but is hard for the bots. This cycle will continue for ever and in 25 years, despite having hyper intelligent embodied robots or whatever, we'll still be arguing about if the singularity is here and if we're at AGI for the rest of my life most likely.

slopinthebag 2mo ago
That’s because AGI, like a lot of terms, has no meaning besides what each individual subjectively projects onto it.
- piloto_ciego 2mo ago
  I agree, like the average human isn't generally intelligent. IMO, AGI is literally no different from ASI, though people think it is. Like, Imagine you have 1,000 generally intelligent humans working for you (which nobody is really) and you were to point them at your pet project. That would be amazing!
  - slopinthebag 2mo ago
    The average human would have average intelligence
    - defrost 2mo ago
      What's the metric on "average human" from a global population of > 8 billion people .. and why would they score mid on a standardised IQ test skewed toward western education / culture?
      - slopinthebag 2mo ago
        Who said anything about IQ tests?
        defrost 2mo ago
        What specific metric did you have in mind for ranking intelligence and determining average intelligence in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49560984 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49560984 You must have some notion of an argument as to why all the varied attributes of different humans should align to all be "average" in some specific human. O/wise you'd be peddling sloppy trite aphorisms that don't bear scrutiny.
        slopinthebag 1mo ago
        average still means something regardless of how you can define it.
baal80spam 2mo ago
> We will now see the goalposts moved It's already happening :)
- piloto_ciego 2mo ago
  Hilariously it is, I'm just reading more on this!
jhonof 2mo ago
We were already there with Opus 5 -> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nvidias-harness-hit-100-arc-agi-3-kubesimplify-chfvf https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nvidias-harness-hit-100-arc-a...
- piloto_ciego 2mo ago
  I rest my case.
- NitpickLawyer 2mo ago
  AFAICT nvda's result is on the 25 open problems, while this submission is on the "semi-private" set, ran by the arc people themselves.
dgellow 2mo ago
The goal moving is by design, that’s why they use something as ill defined as AGI
emp17344 2mo ago
Then why is unemployment around 4%? You believe we have AGI and yet it can’t do anyone’s job?
- piloto_ciego 2mo ago
  Didn’t I just see a thing about how actual unemployment is at like 24% a few days ago?
  - raspasov 2mo ago
    According to that interpretation, ~24% is one of the lowest ever. https://www.lisep.org/tru https://www.lisep.org/tru (I have not gone down the rabbit hole to understand how they achieve that 24% number)
    - _superposition_ 2mo ago
      Workforce participation is different than unemployment. Didn't click the link but I suspect that's the case with your 24%
      - cute_boi 2mo ago
        24% sounds correct to me. Many of my friend who completed phd are currently unemployed .... And, some of them started doing random job like uber to make a living. If government don't step up and regulate outsourcing like 100% tax, big problems are coming up.
        asadotzler 2mo ago
        24.9% is damn close to the 24.8% average over the ast 25 years, for the thing it's measuring-- jobless, people working part-time or involuntarily, and workers earning less than $26,000. Since 2000, it's been over 30% for more years than it's been under 24%.
        brokensegue 2mo ago
WASDx 2mo ago
They explain it here: https://openai.com/index/how-two-settings-tripled-our-arc-agi-3-scores/ https://openai.com/index/how-two-settings-tripled-our-arc-ag... TLDR: The official ARC harness throws away old context and reasoning. No real-world harness is this bad, the model has to re-learn the game repeatedly. OpenAI basically just added standard compaction. Their harness is still "general".

slopinthebag 2mo ago

That’s because AGI, like a lot of terms, has no meaning besides what each individual subjectively projects onto it.

piloto_ciego 2mo ago
I agree, like the average human isn't generally intelligent. IMO, AGI is literally no different from ASI, though people think it is. Like, Imagine you have 1,000 generally intelligent humans working for you (which nobody is really) and you were to point them at your pet project. That would be amazing!
- slopinthebag 2mo ago
  The average human would have average intelligence
  - defrost 2mo ago
    What's the metric on "average human" from a global population of > 8 billion people .. and why would they score mid on a standardised IQ test skewed toward western education / culture?
    - slopinthebag 2mo ago
      Who said anything about IQ tests?
      - defrost 2mo ago
        What specific metric did you have in mind for ranking intelligence and determining average intelligence in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49560984 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49560984 You must have some notion of an argument as to why all the varied attributes of different humans should align to all be "average" in some specific human. O/wise you'd be peddling sloppy trite aphorisms that don't bear scrutiny.
        slopinthebag 1mo ago
        average still means something regardless of how you can define it.

baal80spam 2mo ago

> We will now see the goalposts moved It's already happening :)

piloto_ciego 2mo ago
Hilariously it is, I'm just reading more on this!

jhonof 2mo ago

We were already there with Opus 5 -> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nvidias-harness-hit-100-arc-agi-3-kubesimplify-chfvf https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nvidias-harness-hit-100-arc-a...

piloto_ciego 2mo ago
I rest my case.
NitpickLawyer 2mo ago
AFAICT nvda's result is on the 25 open problems, while this submission is on the "semi-private" set, ran by the arc people themselves.

dgellow 2mo ago

The goal moving is by design, that’s why they use something as ill defined as AGI

emp17344 2mo ago

Then why is unemployment around 4%? You believe we have AGI and yet it can’t do anyone’s job?

piloto_ciego 2mo ago
Didn’t I just see a thing about how actual unemployment is at like 24% a few days ago?
- raspasov 2mo ago
  According to that interpretation, ~24% is one of the lowest ever. https://www.lisep.org/tru https://www.lisep.org/tru (I have not gone down the rabbit hole to understand how they achieve that 24% number)
  - _superposition_ 2mo ago
    Workforce participation is different than unemployment. Didn't click the link but I suspect that's the case with your 24%
    - cute_boi 2mo ago
      24% sounds correct to me. Many of my friend who completed phd are currently unemployed .... And, some of them started doing random job like uber to make a living. If government don't step up and regulate outsourcing like 100% tax, big problems are coming up.
      - asadotzler 2mo ago
        24.9% is damn close to the 24.8% average over the ast 25 years, for the thing it's measuring-- jobless, people working part-time or involuntarily, and workers earning less than $26,000. Since 2000, it's been over 30% for more years than it's been under 24%.
      - brokensegue 2mo ago

WASDx 2mo ago

They explain it here: https://openai.com/index/how-two-settings-tripled-our-arc-agi-3-scores/ https://openai.com/index/how-two-settings-tripled-our-arc-ag... TLDR: The official ARC harness throws away old context and reasoning. No real-world harness is this bad, the model has to re-learn the game repeatedly. OpenAI basically just added standard compaction. Their harness is still "general".