They are simply looking to steer AI policy discussions. It's basically an in-house think tank. It has all the trappings, especially with ominous prognostications like:
Today’s AI systems have impressive capabilities and the rapid pace of innovation suggests we’re now approaching artificial general intelligence (AGI), a system that exhibits all the cognitive capabilities of the human brain.
Not sure we are anywhere close to all the cognitive capabilities of the human brain... not even a severely lobotomized one.
So, like ARC-AGI-3? I'm sympathetic to the notion that the things we're able to measure are necessarily going to miss important aspects of capability and intelligence. But people are attempting to measure this kind of thing, and models keep getting better at it.
That's not true and its exactly the point - real life data is noisy, difficult to parse, and ultimately often ambiguous. Text is the distilled information. It's significantly easier to distilled text into a likely response than it is to distill into lessons a continuous data stream whose contents are partially controlled by your own actions.
nsagent · · focus · HN ↗
Eueudhsbsj32 · · focus · HN ↗
In which capabilities are AI not already close to or beyond that of a human brain?
idiotsecant · · focus · HN ↗
aesthesia · · focus · HN ↗
daveguy · · focus · HN ↗
idiotsecant · · focus · HN ↗
chpatrick · · focus · HN ↗
idiotsecant · · focus · HN ↗
chpatrick · · focus · HN ↗