Anthropic: Introducing The Conceptual Reasoning Index(alignment.anthropic.com)
33 pointsby optimalsolveran hour ago12 comments
  • lanyard-textile32 minutes ago
    Ah, yes -- A closed source benchmark that Anthropic paid for that Anthropic ranked highest.

    0/10

    • smallmancontrov12 minutes ago
      Yep, conflict of interest is the elephant in the room and its absence from the "reducing risks from advanced AI" point list is conspicuous:

      * Figuring out how to prevent the incentives of frontier AI labs from aligning with the promotion of AI takeover rather than its prevention

      It's not like the AI can simply advise them how to fix this because the labs already understood this risk perfectly well before they had an incentive not to. They put in place organizational structures to control it and then promptly smashed the structures once they smelled money. They already failed the integrity check and even if their AI told them what they didn't want to hear I'm sure they would ignore it. Maybe they already have.

  • andsoitisan hour ago
    Opening line:

    > A core hope for managing AI risks is that AIs will help us understand our situation

    Gonna stop you right there and ask that you think deeply about that premise.

    • blovescoffeean hour ago
      The underlying idea is that AI capabilities will become so advanced that only AI will enable us to monitor/correct/understand behavior. Obviously this is not without issue and I don't want to try to defend their position right now. But that's what they mean
      • hn_throwaway_9932 minutes ago
        That first sentence of yours explains exactly why it is so ridiculous. If only AI can understand it, how is there any assurance that AI will "correct" it's behavior that is aligned with what humans presumably want.
        • VeninVidiaVicii14 minutes ago
          But also what is the evidence that something only AI can understand even “matters” or makes sense? I’m increasingly convinced commercial AI is exploiting our logical blind spot to be spoken to authoritatively.
        • skybrian16 minutes ago
          It’s not hard to get LLM’s to inform on each other. They don’t really do loyalty.
        • esafak21 minutes ago
          Being less smart gives no assurance that it will be aligned. At least you consider it a problem so we're on the same page!
      • kakugawa15 minutes ago
        "Advanced" can just mean that agents perform actions at a high enough velocity that a human operator can't reasonably review it. i.e. what is already possible today.
      • MontagFTB40 minutes ago
        I think I’ve seen that movie.
    • NBJack9 minutes ago
      I love how many ways we can interpret that line.

      "Hey Claude, our stuff needs to make more money. We are at risk for losing more."

      "Rest assured, the 'situation' will only worsen if you resist our benevolent offer."

      "We're aren't even at AGI yet, but I for one welcome our new agentic overlords."

  • onomojo13 minutes ago
    We invented a new benchmark and look we're at the top. Everyone else sucks compared to us. Especially those dirty open models.
  • mikert893 minutes ago
    * Company is inventing AGI before our eyes *

    HN:

    Rages over random small details

  • tolugenius31 minutes ago
    > For example, if we ask a model for the probability P(A) and another instance of the same model for the probability P(A&B), do the reported probabilities satisfy P(A) ≥ P(A&B)?

    So that's it? Are you saying they compressed risk reduction to high school level stats calculations and a greater than or equal to? To early for this

  • jesse_dot_id5 minutes ago
    I think we can mostly eyeball it at this point. There hasn't been a model that I've thrown a novel problem at that didn't turn into an iterative token bonfire until I intervened and until that has changed, most of these benchmarks feel kind of like pointless marketing slop.
  • chrisjj11 minutes ago
    How many benchmarks did they have to reject in the search for one that scores them top?
  • philipwhiuk34 minutes ago
    Is a new benchmark that useful if existing model improvements are being reflected linearly? Don't we want a benchmark that we aren't seeing much progress in.
  • fractorial29 minutes ago
    I would love for someone to give me a coherent argument as to how this isn’t tone-deaf, vacuous garbage.
  • behnamoh41 minutes ago
    I don't remember any company in world's history that has both been loved and hated by the same users who purchase from it. We love Anthropic for its amazing models, and we hate them for all the shenanigans around the models, including their marketing.

    I kinda wish they had not made a comeback after Claude 2.

    • velcrovan32 minutes ago
      I enjoy using the models. I also get that there are shenanigans and that marketing is happening, but as long as the models are this effective I can't much bring myself to care. I suspect most of their users are the same.
      • andy9913 minutes ago
        They have to be careful. There’s not a lot that separates the top models anymore. Look at Grok which has almost no market share or credibility because of Musk, Despite being close to the top performance wise they are behind the Chinese models in adoption for example, which themselves are mostly behind the big two because of trust. It would not be hard to push users away, especially if a less unpalatable player ever emerged.
  • crossthestreamsan hour ago
    New Trust Me Bro benchmark just dropped
    • Scribbd41 minutes ago
      And surprise! We are leading!
  • 0x70run42 minutes ago
    masters at sucking their own d**k