Any paper like this would easily take a year or more to write and go through the submission/review/rebuttal/revision/acceptance process. I don't understand why the models being a year or two old now is worth noting as though it's a clear weakness? What should they do, publish sub-standard results more quickly?

▲

anorwell 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> I don't understand why the models being a year or two old now is worth noting as though it's a clear weakness?

I do think it's a clear weakness. Capabilities are extremely different than they were twelve months ago.

> What should they do, publish sub-standard results more quickly?

Ideally, publish quality results more quickly.

I'm quite open to competing viewpoints here, but it's my impression that academic publishing cycle isn't really contributing to the AI discussion in a substantive way. The landscape is just moving too quickly.

▲

yacin 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The onus is on you to prove or at least convincingly argue that the results are unlikely to generalize across incremental model releases. In my personal experience, the overly affirming nature seems to have held since GPT-3. What makes you think a newer, larger model would not exhibit this behavior? Beyond "they're more capable"? I'd argue that being more capable doesn't mean less sycophantic.

It's certainly possible some of the new advances (chain-of-thought, some kind of agentic architecture) could lessen or remove this effect. But that's not what the paper was studying! And if you feel strongly about it, you could try to further the discussion with results instead of handwavingly dismissing others' work.

	▲	mkagenius an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think you are absolutely right. (had to)