Evidence receipt / recommendation
Published · transcript-backedFrancois Chollet: recommendation
11 Jun 2024 Dwarkesh Podcast Francois Chollet — Why the biggest AI models can't solve simple puzzles
“Maybe we won't be releasing it publicly, but what we could do is just create a test server where you can query, get a task, and submit a solution.”
Source trail
Everything needed to verify it.
- Speaker
- Francois Chollet
- Attribution
- Verified speaker
- Claim type
- recommendation
- Recorded
- 11 Jun 2024
- Publisher
- Dwarkesh Podcast
Transcript context
…We do want to evolve the ARC dataset. That is a goal that we want to do. François mentioned that it's not perfect. Yeah, ARC is not a perfect benchmark. I made it over four years ago, almost five now. This was in a time before LLMs. We’ve actually learned a lot since about what potential flaws there might be. There is some redundancy in the set of tasks, which is of course against the goals of the benchmark. Every task is supposed to be unique in practice. That's not quite true. Every task is also supposed to be very novel, but in practice, they might not be. They might be structurally similar to something that you might find online somewhere. So we want to keep iterating and release an ARC 2.0 version later this year. When we do that, we're going to want to make the old private test set available. Maybe we won't be releasing it publicly, but what we could do is just create a test server where you can query, get a task, and submit a solution. Of course you can use whatever frontier model you want there. Because you actually have to query this API, you're making sure that no one is going to accidentally train on this data. It's unlike the current public ARC data, which is literally on GitHub. There's actually no question about whether the models are trained on it. They are because they train on GitHub. By gating access to requiring this API, we would avoid this issue. For people who want to try whatever technique they have in mind, using whatever resources they want, that would be a way for them to get an answer. I wonder what might happen. I'm not sure. One answer is that they come up with a whole new algorithm for AI with some explicit program synthesis. Now we're on a new track. Another is that they did something hacky with the existing models in a way that actually is valid, which reveals that maybe intelligence is more of getting things to the right part of the distribution. Then it can reason. In that world, that will be interesting. Maybe that'll indicate that you had to do something hacky with current models. As they get better you won't have to do something hacky. I'm also going to be very curious to see if these multimodal models will natively perform much better at ARC-like tests.…
Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.