> We find that nearly half of the our bench- marks exhibit saturation
Data at https://gertlabs.com/rankings
This results in a lot of "oh wow it can do math I dont care about" and "it can't code a lot, but not well" outcomes instead of the core needs:
1) Cheaper faster and real time 2) Long walk capable without losing attention while rescoring goals over updated enviroment 3) Specific domain knowledge that can be trained quickly into the model (how we do work in this specific case)
I think Epoch has the best analysis I’ve seen on evaluation trends; they use IRT to basically model a variety of benchmark difficulties, and then model a capability parameter for each model. This is as robust a sort of “meta-study” of evaluations as I’ve seen and the trend in capabilities show no sign of slowing down.
So I think people’s feelings clash with reality, and that’s because releases are more frequent and the jumps between releases are smaller, but the growth in capabilities _over time_ has not changed for the better or worse over a very very long period of time.
This is not "Acing" a test, this is hitting a wall.
otterdude•46m ago
If the Pareto rule is any indicator, 80% of results come from 20% of causes. It seems that we have alot more to learn about intelligence.
I am reminded of a statement on truth from an ancient philosopher, this sentiment seems to be exactly the opposite of the LLM training paradigm
“The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration and not the sayings of human beings whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of of its content, attack it from every side. he should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.” - ibn al-Haytham
graemep•38m ago
scotty79•37m ago
freejazz•30m ago
logicchains•25m ago
otterdude•24m ago
Most "AI" is really an optimization algorithm in software tools, same as its always been. This really isnt anything new, aside from adding a chatbot / MCP interface to the same tools.
scotty79•9m ago
otterdude•28m ago
adrianN•32m ago
tsunamifury•14m ago
We know exactly how attention layers work and how they produce the next word as well as draw them from larger feature spaces.
warkdarrior•9m ago
I tried to generate the next word to the best of my ability, starting with a mathematical problem, but I did not create a valid proof. How do these LLMs work when they create math proofs to problems not yet solved?
Jensson•12m ago
runarberg•6m ago
0xdeadbeefbabe•27m ago
logicchains•26m ago
It's just inadequate benchmarks. Anyone who has used Fable for anything particularly difficult will have seen that it's miles ahead of Opus 5.0, yet the majority of benchmarks are completely unable to capture this.
Jensson•7m ago
We already know from testing humans that test scores don't correlate that well with how effective a person is at work. Same applies here, we just aren't that great at making good tests.
heaney-555•15m ago
This is an amazingly ignorant thing to say given the current pace of progress.
Jensson•10m ago
hiddencost•15m ago
Frontier labs have categorically different & better set ups for evaluation, they're fine. It's work but it's not a crisis.