←back to thread

Francois Chollet is leaving Google

(developers.googleblog.com)
377 points xnx | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.48s | source
Show context
max_ ◴[] No.42131308[source]
I wonder what he will be working on?

Maybe he figured out a model that beats ARC-AGI by 85%?

replies(1): >>42131784 #
trott ◴[] No.42131784[source]
> Maybe he figured out a model that beats ARC-AGI by 85%?

People have, I think.

One of the published approaches (BARC) uses GPT-4o to generate a lot more training data.

The approach is scaling really well so far [1], and whether you expect linear scaling or exponential one [2], the 85% threshold can be reached, using the "transduction" model alone, after generating under 2 million tasks ($20K in OpenAI credits).

Perhaps for 2025, the organizers will redesign ARC-AGI to be more resistant to this sort of approach, somehow.

---

[1] https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/arc-prize-2024/discussio...

[2] If you are "throwing darts at a board", you get exponential scaling (the probability of not hitting bullseye at least once reduces exponentially with the number of throws). If you deliberately design your synthetic dataset to be non-redundant, you might get something akin to linear scaling (until you hit perfect accuracy, of course).

replies(4): >>42131848 #>>42132132 #>>42132502 #>>42132655 #
1. thrw42A8N ◴[] No.42131848[source]
> If you are "throwing darts at a board", you get exponential scaling (the probability of not hitting bullseye reduces exponentially with the number of throws).

Honest question - is that so, and why? I thought you have to calculate the probability of each throw individually as nothing fundamentally connects the throws together, only that long term there will be a normal distribution of randomness.

replies(1): >>42131877 #
2. trott ◴[] No.42131877[source]
> The probability of not hitting bullseye at least once ...

I added a clarification.