• Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    o3 made the high score on ARC through brute force, not by being good. To raise the score from 75% to 87% required 175 times more computing power, but exactly stunning returns.

    • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      Why does it matter?

      If it can through brute force, it can do it. That’s the first step towards true agi, nobody said the first AGI would be economical, this feels like a major goalpost shift if you’re acknowledging it can do it at all, isn’t that insane?

      A little bit ago, everyone would’ve been saying this will never happen, that there was a natural wall simply because all it does is predict the next token, it’s been like, a few years of llm’s and they’re already getting this insane. We’re going to have AGI soon, it might not be a transformer, but billions upon billions of dollars are being thrown at this problem, there are people smart enough in the world to make this work, and this is the earliest sign that it’s coming.

      • Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I’m not convinced that it’s anywhere near an AGI, I’m convinced after combing through papers and code, that it’s an amazing parlor trick.

        I’d love to be proven wrong, but everything I’ve seen and everything I’ve used in my studies ( using DNN to simulate neurodivergence and spinal disgenesis, which is kinda AI adjacent) leads me to believe that the current part won’t lead to anything but convincing parlor tricks.

        The argument could be made that if a trick is convincing enough, does it matter if it’s intelligent or not.

          • Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            45 minutes ago

            I’m not entirely sure.
            A non-probabilistic algorithm, probably. Something that didn’t rely on the liklihood of association, and instead was capable of context and rationality.
            Something that wouldn’t have a system capable of saying “Put glue on your pizza” because it would know that’s a silly thing to say to a human. A system that, when asked "Whats a good caustic detergent " wouldn’t be able to respond "Any good caustic detergent is a good caustic detergent " because duh. Something that doesn’t require thousands of hours of training to update and instead is capable of ingesting and rationalize new information on the fly.