Do opus 4.6 or gemini deep think really use test time adaptation ? How does it work in practice?

> If something claims to be conscious and we can't prove it's not, we have no choice but to believe it.

This is not a good test.

A dog won't claim to be conscious but clearly is, despite you not being able to prove one way or the other.

GPT-3 will claim to be conscious and (probably) isn't, despite you not being able to prove one way or the other.

>because we can no longer find tasks that are feasible for normal humans but unsolved by AI.

"Answer "I don't know" if you don't know an answer to one of the questions"

> Edit: The average human tested scores 60%. So the machines are already smarter on an individual basis than the average human.

I think being better at this particular benchmark does not imply they're 'smarter'.

> The average human tested scores 60%. So the machines are already smarter on an individual basis than the average human.

Maybe it's testing the wrong things then. Even those of use who are merely average can do lots of things that machines don't seem to be very good at.

I think ability to learn should be a core part of any AGI. Take a toddler who has never seen anybody doing laundry before and you can teach them in a few minutes how to fold a t-shirt. Where are the dumb machines that can be taught?

> If something claims to be conscious and we can't prove it's not, we have no choice but to believe it.

Can you "prove" that GPT2 isn't concious?

How can you make sure of that? AFAIK, these SOTA models run exclusively on their developers hardware. So any test, any benchmark, anything you do, does leak per definition. Considering the nature of us humans and the typical prisoners dilemma, I don't see how they wouldn't focus on improving benchmarks even when it gets a bit... shady?

I tell this as a person who really enjoys AI by the way.

* that you weren't supposed to be able to

> Could it also be that the models are just a lot better than a year ago?

No, the proof is in the pudding.

After AI we're having higher prices, higher deficits and lower standard of living. Electricity, computers and everything else costs more. "Doing better" can only be justified by that real benchmark.

If Gemini 3 DT was better we would have falling prices of electricity and everything else at least until they get to pre-2019 levels.

I don't understand what you want to tell us with this image.

Does folding a protein count? How about increasing performance at Go?

> maybe there's intelligence in there, but hardly general.

Of course. Just as our human intelligence isn't general.

the best way I've seen this describes is "spikey" intelligence, really good at some points, those make the spikes

humans are the same way, we all have a unique spike pattern, interests and talents

ai are effectively the same spikes across instances, if simplified. I could argue self driving vs chatbots vs world models vs game playing might constitute enough variation. I would not say the same of Gemini vs Claude vs ... (instances), that's where I see "spikey clones"