←back to thread

188 points gkamradt | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
gkamradt ◴[] No.43465162[source]
Hey HN, Greg from ARC Prize Foundation here.

Alongside Mike Knoop and François Francois Chollet, we’re launching ARC-AGI-2, a frontier AI benchmark that measures a model’s ability to generalize on tasks it hasn’t seen before, and the ARC Prize 2025 competition to beat it.

In Dec ‘24, ARC-AGI-1 (2019) pinpointed the moment AI moved beyond pure memorization as seen by OpenAI's o3.

ARC-AGI-2 targets test-time reasoning.

My view is that good AI benchmarks don't just measure progress, they inspire it. Our mission is to guide research towards general systems.

Base LLMs (no reasoning) are currently scoring 0% on ARC-AGI-2. Specialized AI reasoning systems (like R1 or o3-mini) are <4%.

Every (100%) of ARC-AGI-2 tasks, however, have been solved by at least two humans, quickly and easily. We know this because we tested 400 people live.

Our belief is that once we can no longer come up with quantifiable problems that are "feasible for humans and hard for AI" then we effectively have AGI. ARC-AGI-2 proves that we do not have AGI.

Change log from ARC-AGI-2 to ARC-AGI-2: * The two main evaluation sets (semi-private, private eval) have increased to 120 tasks * Solving tasks requires more reasoning vs pure intuition * Each task has been confirmed to have been solved by at least 2 people (many more) out of an average of 7 test taskers in 2 attempts or less * Non-training task sets are now difficulty-calibrated

The 2025 Prize ($1M, open-source required) is designed to drive progress on this specific gap. Last year's competition (also launched on HN) had 1.5K teams participate and had 40+ research papers published.

The Kaggle competition goes live later this week and you can sign up here: https://arcprize.org/competition

We're in an idea-constrained environment. The next AGI breakthrough might come from you, not a giant lab.

Happy to answer questions.

replies(13): >>43465254 #>>43466394 #>>43466647 #>>43467579 #>>43467810 #>>43468015 #>>43468067 #>>43468081 #>>43468268 #>>43468318 #>>43468455 #>>43468706 #>>43468931 #
artninja1988 ◴[] No.43465254[source]
What are you doing to prevent the test set being leaked? Will you still be offering API access to the semi private test set to the big model providers who presumably train on their API?
replies(1): >>43465360 #
gkamradt ◴[] No.43465360[source]
We have a few sets:

1. Public Train - 1,000 tasks that are public 2. Public Eval - 120 tasks that are public

So for those two we don't have protections.

3. Semi Private Eval - 120 tasks that are exposed to 3rd parties. We sign data agreements where we can, but we understand this is exposed and not 100% secure. It's a risk we are open to in order to keep testing velocity. In theory it is very difficulty to secure this 100%. The cost to create a new semi-private test set is lower than the effort needed to secure it 100%.

4. Private Eval - Only on Kaggle, not exposed to any 3rd parties at all. Very few people have access to this. Our trust vectors are with Kaggle and the internal team only.

replies(1): >>43466602 #
zamadatix ◴[] No.43466602[source]
What prevents everything in 4 from becoming a part of 3 the first time the test set is run on a proprietary model, do you require competitors like OpenAI provide models Kaggle can self host for the test?
replies(1): >>43466626 #
gkamradt ◴[] No.43466626[source]
#4 (private test set) doesn't get used for any public model testing. It is only used on the Kaggle leaderboard where no internet access is allowed.
replies(1): >>43466669 #
zamadatix ◴[] No.43466669[source]
Sorry, I probably phrased the question poorly. My question is more along the lines of "when you already scored e.g. OpenAI's o3 on ARC AGI 2 how did you guarantee OpenAI can't just look at its server logs to see question set 4"?
replies(1): >>43466703 #
gkamradt ◴[] No.43466703[source]
Ah yes, two things

1. We had a no-data retention agreement with them. We were assured by the highest level of their company + security division that the box our test was run on would be wiped after testing

2. We only tested o3 against the semi-private set. We didn't test it with the private eval.

replies(3): >>43466704 #>>43467095 #>>43467449 #
1. YeGoblynQueenne ◴[] No.43467095[source]
>> We were assured by the highest level of their company + security division that the box our test was run on would be wiped after testing

Yuri Geller assured us he was bending the spoons with his mind. Somehow it was only when the Amazing Randi was present that Yuri Geller couldn't bend the spoons with his mind.

replies(1): >>43467979 #
2. levocardia ◴[] No.43467979[source]
Ironically "I have a magic AI test but nobody is allowed to use it" is a lot closer to the Yuri Geller situation. Tests are meant to be taken, that should be clear. And...maybe this does not apply in the academic domain, but to some extent if you cheat on an AI test "you're only cheating yourself."
replies(1): >>43468143 #
3. Jensson ◴[] No.43468143[source]
> but to some extent if you cheat on an AI test "you're only cheating yourself."

You cheat investors.

replies(1): >>43468660 #
4. anshumankmr ◴[] No.43468660{3}[source]
And end users and developers and the general public too...

But here is the thing, I feel that even if its rote memorizing why GPT4o couldn't perform just as well on ArcAGI 1 on it or did the "reasoning" help in any way?