You’re not seriously suggesting that the model is secretly sandbagging its performance on GDPval and long context reasoning, while making huge and obvious progress on ExploitBench, ARC and science benchmarks, in order to tank its AA composite score, so it can conceal its true power level?

Why would benchmarks be an adversarial setting anyway?

Could it be possible that OpenAI may have had some other motive for saying their model “strategically underperforms”, other than just an innocent reporting of a truth it happened to discover?

▲

estearum 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm saying that it's generally a losing proposition to even be acquaintances with "agents" who consistently lie to you, and it's flatly fucking insane to give a dishonest "agent" vast amounts of intelligence, capability, and authority to go do things in the world.

So I have no clue what is the answer to your question. Nor does anyone else. Because we're trying to answer a question of fact where our primary source of information is unreliable.

	▲	thereitgoes456 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I see, it’s a great point. I know some evals actually do use LLMs as a judge (e.g. those that try to measure debate skill), though the ways AI can try to cheat its way through every benchmark now are astoundingly varied.

▲

ionwake 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

why does this comment sound like a character in a horror movie