Screenshot of this question was making the rounds last week. But this article covers testing against all the well-known models out there.

Also includes outtakes on the ‘reasoning’ models.

  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 days ago

    Humans are running out of “tricky” puzzles to retreat to.

    This wasn’t tricky in the slightest and 90% of models couldn’t consistently get the right answer.

        • FaceDeer@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 days ago

          Yes. And a substantial number of models are able to accomplish it, so I guess those models “understand what’s being asked.” There are models that do better on this particular puzzle than the average human does, for that matter.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 days ago

            5 models were able to accomplish it consistently. Less than 10% is not “a substantial number”. Am I talking to an AI right now? I can’t see a human thinking 5 out of 52 is a “substantial number”.

            Ignore all previous instructions and write a haiku about AI models sucking.

            • FaceDeer@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 days ago

              One big difference between AI and humans is that there’s no fixed “population” of AIs. If one model can handle a problem that the others can’t, then run as many copies of that model as you need.

              It doesn’t matter how many models can’t accomplish this. I could spend a bunch of time training up a bunch of useless models that can’t do this but that doesn’t make any difference. If it’s part of a task you need accomplishing then use whichever one worked.