←back to thread

Getting 50% (SoTA) on Arc-AGI with GPT-4o

(redwoodresearch.substack.com)
394 points tomduncalf | 1 comments | 17 Jun 24 21:51 UTC | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
eigenvalue ◴[17 Jun 24 23:00 UTC] No.40712174[source]▶
The Arc stuff just felt intuitively wrong as soon as I heard it. I don't find any of Chollet's critiques of LLMs to be convincing. It's almost as if he's being overly negative about them to make a point or something to push back against all the unbridled optimism. The problem is, the optimism really seems to be justified, and the rate of improvement of LLMs in the past 12 months has been nothing short of astonishing.

So it's not at all surprising to me to see Arc already being mostly solved using existing models, just with different prompting techniques and some tool usage. At some point, the naysayers about LLMs are going to have to confront the problem that, if they are right about LLMs not really thinking/understanding/being sentient, then a very large percentage of people living today are also not thinking/understanding/sentient!

replies(11): >>40712233 #>>40712290 #>>40712304 #>>40712352 #>>40712385 #>>40712431 #>>40712465 #>>40712713 #>>40713110 #>>40713491 #>>40714220 #
1. biophysboy ◴[18 Jun 24 00:13 UTC] No.40712713[source]▶
I don't think he's as critical as you say. He just views LLMs as the product of intelligence rather than intelligence itself. LLM fans will say this is a false distinction, I guess.

His definition of intelligence is interesting: something that can quickly achieve tasks with few priors or experience. I also think the idea of using human "Core Knowledge" priors is a clever way to make a test.