"ARC-AGI-1: * Low: 44%, $1.64/task * Medium: 57%, $3.18/task * High: 59%, $4.16/task
ARC-AGI-2: * All reasoning efforts: <5%, $4-7/task
Takeaways: * o3-pro in line with o3 performance * o3's new price sets the ARC-AGI-1 Frontier"
Given the models don’t even see the versions we get to see it doesn’t surprise me they have issues we these. It’s not hard to make benchmarks that are so hard that humans and Lims can’t do.
LLMs have obviously reached the point where they are smarter than almost every person alive, better at maths, physics, biology, English, foreign languages, etc.
But because they can’t solve this honestly weird visual/spatial reasoning test they aren’t intelligent?
That must mean most humans on this planet aren’t generally intelligent too.
I dont think memorizing stuff is the same as being smart. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
> But because they can’t solve this honestly weird visual/spatial reasoning test they aren’t intelligent?
Yes. Being intelligent is about recognizing patterns and thats what arc agi tests. It tests ability to learn. A lot of people are not very smart.
I agree. The problem I have with the Chinese Room thought experiment is: just as the human who mechanically reading books to answer questions they don't understands does not themselves know Chinese, likewise no neuron in the human brain knows how the brain works.
The intelligence, such as it is, is found in the process that generated the structure — of the translation books in the Chinese room, of the connectome in our brains, and of the weights in an LLM.
What comes out of that process is an artefact of intelligence, and that artefact can translate Chinese or whatever.
Because all current AI take a huge number of examples to learn anything, I think it's fair to say they're not particularly intelligent — but likewise, they can to an extent make up for being stupid by being stupid very very quickly.
But: this definition of intelligence doesn't really fit "can solve novel puzzle", as there's a lot of room for getting good at that my memorising lot of things that puzzle-creators tend to do.
And any mind (biological or synthetic) must learn patterns before getting started: the problem of induction* is that no finite number of examples is ever guaranteed to be sufficient to predict the next item in a sequence, there is always an infinite set of other possible solutions in general (though in reality bounded by 2^n, where n = the number of bits required to express the universe in any given state).
I suspect, but cannot prove, that biological intelligence learns from fewer examples for a related reason, that our brains have been given a bias by evolution towards certain priors from which "common sense" answers tend to follow. And "common sense" is often wrong, c.f. Aristotelian physics (never mind Newtonian) instead of QM/GR.
I love how the bar for are LLMs smart just goes up every few months.
In a year it will be, well, LLMs didn't create totally breakthrough new Quantum Physics, it's still not as smart as us... lol
I agree things are looking up for LLMs, but the semantics do matter here. In my experience LLMs are still pretty bad at solving novel problems(like arc agi 2) which is why I do not believe they have much intelligence. They seem to have started doing it a little, but are still mostly regurgitating.
Certainly those non-representative humans are much better than current models, but they're also far from scoring 100%.
Also mammals? What mammals could even understand we were giving it a test?
Have you seen them or shown them to average people? I’m sure the people who write them understand them but if you show these problems to average people in the street they are completely clueless.
This is a classic case of some phd ai guys making a benchmark and not really considering what average people are capable of.
Look, these insanely capable ai systems can’t do these problems but the boys in the lab can do them, what a good benchmark.
---
> Have you seen them or shown them to average people? I’m sure the people who write them understand them but if you show these problems to average people in the street they are completely clueless.
I can show them to people on my family, I'll do it today and come back with the answer, it's the best way of testing that out.
Are you thinking of a different set? Arc-agi-2 has average 60% success for a single person and questions require only 2 out of 9 correct answers to be accepted. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1hQrGh5YI6MK3PalQYSQs...
> and even some other mammals to do.
No, that's not the case.
Either way, there's something fishy about this presentation, it says: "ARC-AGI-1 WAS EASILY BRUTE-FORCIBLE", but when o3 initially "solved" most of it the co-founder or ARC-PRIZE said: "Despite the significant cost per task, these numbers aren't just the result of applying brute force compute to the benchmark. OpenAI's new o3 model represents a significant leap forward in AI's ability to adapt to novel tasks. This is not merely incremental improvement, but a genuine breakthrough, marking a qualitative shift in AI capabilities compared to the prior limitations of LLMs. o3 is a system capable of adapting to tasks it has never encountered before, arguably approaching human-level performance in the ARC-AGI domain.", he was saying confidently that it would not be a result of brute-forcing the problems. And it was not the first time, "ARC-AGI-1 consists of 800 puzzle-like tasks, designed as grid-based visual reasoning problems. These tasks, trivial for humans but challenging for machines, typically provide only a small number of example input-output pairs (usually around three). This requires the test taker (human or AI) to deduce underlying rules through abstraction, inference, and prior knowledge rather than brute-force or extensive training."
Now they are saying ARC-AGI-2 is not bruteforcible, what is happening there? They didn't provided any reasoning for why one was bruteforcible and the other not, nor how they are so sure about that. They "recognized" that it could be brute-forced before, but in a way less expressive manner, by explicitly stating it would need "unlimited resources and time" to solve. And they are using the non-bruteforceability in this presentation as a point for it.
--- Also, I mentioned mammals because those problems are of an order that mammals and even other animals would need to solve in reality for a diversity of cases. I'm not saying that they would literally be able to take the test and solve it, nor to understand this is a test, but that they would need to solve problems of similar nature in reality. Naturally this point has it's own limits, but it's not easily discarded as you tried to do.
You told someone that their reasoning is so bad they should get checked by a doctor. Because they didn't find the test easy, even though it averages 60% score per person. You've been a dick to them while significantly misrepresenting the numbers - just stop digging.
So on the edge, if he was not able to understand them at all, and this was not just a problem of grasping the problem, my point was that this would possibly indicate a neurological problem, or developmental, due to the nature of them. It's not a question of "you need to get all of them right", his point was that he was unable to understand them at all, that it confused them to an understanding level.