And the latest model that they measured, which is already behind the newest model they're now working on, has an insane jump in capabilities: https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1xorf5c/metr_r...
This is easy for us to empirically verify with some back of the envelope math - OpenAI's internal model that solved Navier-Stokes ~2 months ago required 10,000 agents running for 88 hours, or 880,000 total hours, to solve it. A month later, when they dropped the 722 math proofs with some truly stunning results like UGC in there, it took just a single agent an average of 3 hours to get those results. Granted, the results aren't on the same caliber, but some of them genuinely are insane - and even if you knock off multiple digits off the 300,000x speedup there, you're still getting some insane acceleration in capabilities.
And then of course ETH was disproved, and Anthropic claimed it took just 14 million output tokens to do this with their internal research model.
Put simply, the models the frontier labs are using to speed up R&D autonomously that are making them believe RSI is imminent look nothing like the outdated models we have publicly available to us. Saying that the models today don't look like they would do autonomous R&D that well says nothing about how the internal models would perform on similar tasks - in the same way that someone looking at older LLMs and saying they don't code very well autonomously would be mind-blown to see how autonomous coding has turned out today.
[–] Kotlopou 1 day ago
With the most optimistic scaling law from that source, a swarm of 10,000 only gives you a ~500x improvement in performance, and with the most pessimistic only a ~90x improvement. The point of a swarm is to get the same result faster, but more expensively (which OpenAI wanted because of the race dynamics around Navier-Stokes).
This alone knocks 1-2 OOMs off your supposed improvement, and the rest may easily be the different inherent difficulty of the constructions, which is all over the place -- in the big dump, one result (Quasi-RH) took more effort than the rest, and already with Astra people are finding crazy results. Right now, it's easier to judge problem difficulty in terms of the AI time needed to solve them (And whether they can be solved! Most still can't!) than to judge AIs based on which problems they can solve.
[–] troupo 1 day ago
I'm surprised anyone actually believes it.
[–] ebtebt 1 day ago
[–] troupo 1 day ago
No, the labs' models are not light-years ahead. That's what labs claim with literally no independent verification of these claims. They want you (and investors, and politicians) to believe these models are light-years ahead.
What they do have is unlimited and unrestricted access to their own models.
[–] famouswaffles 1 day ago
[–] bigstrat2003 1 day ago
[–] troupo 1 day ago
OpenAI said they sat on it for 8 months
> It's kind of silly not to realize they do indeed have access to models months ahead of the public at minimum
Yes, they do. Nothing in this sentence implies that what they have access to is "light years ahead of the public models".
[–] famouswaffles 1 day ago
They sat in it. We had concrete details ('rumors' that turned out surprisingly accurate) months before the public release.
>Yes, they do. Nothing in this sentence implies that what they have access to is "light years ahead of the public models".
"Light years" is subjective, but the accomplishments of those internal models we're priven to should be enough to give you some indication. You can fire up as many Astra agents as you like you're not going to get the performance of Open AI's internal model in math. Just as you can fire as many GPT-4 instances and you're not going to get anything resembling Opus 5.5.
[–] troupo 1 day ago
So all you had was rumours then "confirmed" by OpenAI marketing
> "Light years" is subjective
Yes. And this subjective description invokes a certain image that I objected to.
> but the accomplishments of those internal models we're proven to should be enough to give you some indication.
Yes. The indication is: there are some improvements, with diminishing returns [1]. A lot of perceived improvements now come from tooling, harnesses etc.
And the people working at the labs have access to unrestricted models and unlimited compute that will not flag you for "bio research" and will not stop running after 5 hours, which adds to the marketing myths.
> You can fire up as many Astra agents as you like you're not going to get the performance of Open AI's internal model in math.
Of course I won't. I don't have the same access.
Doesn't mean any of their models are light years ahead. And as for maths, again, you literally have no idea what they were actually doing besides their marketing materials. But even their marketing materials let slip some details that amount to "commandeered a full cluster for 20 000 hours and let it rip".
Edit: Moreover. We know they are not light years ahead, or substantially better than what users want. While they let some of their researchers do cool shit with unlimited resources, you can see the rest of what these labs produce: from their websites, to their harnesses, to their apps. Buggy incoherent mess. Doesn't scream "light years ahead" to me.
[1] Subjectively the models haven't moved an inch since February this year, and regressed in quite a few areas (code duplication is worse, Claude-ish permeates everything, context compaction is even more random and training quickly overrides context etc.)
[–] xbmcuser 1 day ago