The test doesn't prove you have AGI. It proves you don't have AGI. If your AI can't solve these problems that humans can solve, it can't be AGI.

Once the AIs solve this, there will be another ARC-AGI. And so on until we can't find any more problems that can be solved by humans and not AI. And that's when we'll know we have AGI.

▲

observationist 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

AI X that can solve the tests contrasted with AI Y that cannot, with all else being equal, means X is closer to AGI than Y. There's no meaningful scale implicit to the tests, either.

Kinda crazy that Yudkowsky and all those rationalists and enthusiasts spent over a decade obsessing over this stuff, and we've had almost 80 years of elite academics pondering on it, and none of them could come up with a meaningful, operational theory of intelligence. The best we can do is "closer to AGI" as a measurement, and even then, it's not 100% certain, because a model might have some cheap tricks implicit to the architecture that don't actually map to a meaningful difference in capabilities.

Gotta love the field of AI.

▲

rolux 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Will there be a point in that series of ARC-AGI tests where AI can design the next test, or is designing the next text always going to be a problem that can be solved by humans and not AI?

	▲	modeless an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I don't see why AI couldn't design tests. But they can only be validated by humans, as they are intended to be possible and ideally easy for humans to solve.

▲

famouswaffles 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>It proves you don't have AGI.

It doesn't prove anything of the sort. ARC-AGI has always been nothing special in that regard but this one really takes the cake. A 'human baseline' that isn't really a baseline and a scoring so convoluted a model could beat every game in reasonable time and still score well below 100. Really what are we doing here ?

That Francois had to do all this nonsense should tell you the state of where we are right now.