I don’t think it’s nitpicky at all. A trend showing small, increasing numbers, just above 0, is very different (qualitatively) to a trend that is all flat 0s, as Ben West points out.
I am curious to see what will happen in 5 years when there is no AGI.
If this happens, we will at least know a lot more about how AGI works (or doesn’t). I’ll be happy to admit I’m wrong (I mean, I’ll be happy to still be around, for a start[1]).
I think the most likely reason we won’t have AGI in 5 years is that there will be a global moratorium on further development. This is what I’m pushing for.
A trend showing small, increasing numbers, just above 0, is very different (qualitatively) to a trend that is all flat 0s
Then it’s a good thing I didn’t claim there was “a trend that is all flat 0s” in the comment you called “disingenuous”. I said:
It’s only with the o3-low and o1-pro models we see scores above 0% — but still below 5%. Getting above 0% on ARC-AGI-2 is an interesting result and getting much higher scores on the previous version of the benchmark, ARC-AGI, is an interesting result. There’s a nuanced discussion to be had about that topic.
This feels like such a small detail to focus on. It feels ridiculous.
I don’t think it’s nitpicky at all. A trend showing small, increasing numbers, just above 0, is very different (qualitatively) to a trend that is all flat 0s, as Ben West points out.
If this happens, we will at least know a lot more about how AGI works (or doesn’t). I’ll be happy to admit I’m wrong (I mean, I’ll be happy to still be around, for a start[1]).
I think the most likely reason we won’t have AGI in 5 years is that there will be a global moratorium on further development. This is what I’m pushing for.
Then it’s a good thing I didn’t claim there was “a trend that is all flat 0s” in the comment you called “disingenuous”. I said:
This feels like such a small detail to focus on. It feels ridiculous.