52 pointsby vignesh_wararan hour ago5 comments
  • malfist10 minutes ago
    Is solving a snake like puzzle game in the least number of moves really what defines intelligence?
    • GaggiX9 minutes ago
      If you have never seen the game before probably.
  • dwohnitmok18 minutes ago
    > Astra’s progress helps clarify which AI capabilities are out of reach and which questions remain open.

    Okay. But I don't think this entire article at all explained which AI capabilities remain out of reach. Did I miss something? Other than "oh I guess it could still get even more superhuman on ARC-AGI-3 than it is?"

  • yusufozkanan hour ago
    what the hell is that score/cost curve lol
    • minimaxiran hour ago
      DeepSeek v4 Flash recently had a similar "more reasoning is cheaper" curve. It's a fun counterintuition.
      • Phemist22 minutes ago
        What is the intuition. Higher quality turns due to more reasoning results in significantly fewer turns taken?
  • piloto_ciego30 minutes ago
    99.9% with the right harness? Ok, we're at AGI then.

    Prediction:

    We will now see the goalposts moved towards "well, a human costs less / is more efficient" - that will prevail for a few months until they come up with some other test that humans can do easily but is hard for the bots. This cycle will continue for ever and in 25 years, despite having hyper intelligent embodied robots or whatever, we'll still be arguing about if the singularity is here and if we're at AGI for the rest of my life most likely.

    • jhonof25 minutes ago
    • dgellow21 minutes ago
      The goal moving is by design, that’s why they use something as ill defined as AGI
    • slopinthebag26 minutes ago
      That’s because AGI, like a lot of terms, has no meaning besides what each individual subjectively projects onto it.
      • piloto_ciego22 minutes ago
        I agree, like the average human isn't generally intelligent.

        IMO, AGI is literally no different from ASI, though people think it is. Like, Imagine you have 1,000 generally intelligent humans working for you (which nobody is really) and you were to point them at your pet project. That would be amazing!

    • baal80spam25 minutes ago
      > We will now see the goalposts moved

      It's already happening :)

      • piloto_ciego21 minutes ago
        Hilariously it is, I'm just reading more on this!
  • Betelbuddy43 minutes ago
    "For a cost comparison, during our controlled testing, human participants were paid $115 per 90-minute session, plus $5 per game completed. Participants attempted approximately nine games per session, roughly $12.78 per attempted game before bonuses.

    Most of this fee pays for the participant’s time and willingness to take the test, rather than the energy their brain uses (a closer proxy to compare with AI). If we look at only the brain’s energy, and price it as electricity, the estimate drops to about 0.6 cents per session, or 0.067 cents per game attempted."

    Well I dont know about all of you, but I am celebrating meat based humans...

    • LPisGood22 minutes ago
      I think raw brain energy is not a fair comparison. Humans are not willing and able to serve requests at identical competence all hours of the day. You have to invest considerable resources to get a person to even do so for part of the day.
    • paxys20 minutes ago
      Why are you making the assumption that a person's time is worthless? I'd argue that it is the single most valuable resource we all have.