HN

Comments (49)

• Menu

  lanyard-textile
  Ah, yes -- A closed source benchmark that Anthropic paid for that Anthropic ranked highest.0/10
• Menu

  andsoitis
  Opening line:> A core hope for managing AI risks is that AIs will help us understand our situationGonna stop you right there and ask that you think deeply about that premise.
• xlayn
  We have totally come out with this idea of this index that will allow us to create policies to ensure only the best and safest AIs are used by the public....Absolutely no conflict of interest, no lobbying hereAnd no this is not related to those chinesse models... it's not the same as HD vs honda thing...Trust us, this is the same kind of amazing thing as boeing doing their own certifications and inspections!-- First reply: those dumb models, who use them, they are good only for adding 1 + 1 -- another: They will do the same so who cares... -- The valve guy is a dick, and has a monopoly...
• Menu

  onomojo
  We invented a new benchmark and look we're at the top. Everyone else sucks compared to us. Especially those dirty open models.
• eutropia
  This is a modest start on an important direction for AI Alignment work; which is, as the authors observe, commonly comprised of tasks which are not readily empirically verifiable and not easily mathematically modeled - so it's hard to get at with normal RL techniques.I find the ACCoRD benchmark the most interesting, because you could theoretically scale it up from the baseline mode of testing two instances of the same model for their `P(A) ≥ P(A&B)` respectively, you could do `P(A)≥ P(A&B) && P(A) ≥ P(A&C) && P(A&B) ≥ P(A&B&C) && P(A&C) ≥ P(A&B&C) ...` etci.e. a swarm of model instances could be collectively measured for consistency for even more confidence, right?At any rate, even the basic idea of measuring a model for consistency in beliefs improves our ability to bound the amount of trust we can put on it with introspection methods.
• tolugenius
  > For example, if we ask a model for the probability P(A) and another instance of the same model for the probability P(A&B), do the reported probabilities satisfy P(A) ≥ P(A&B)?So that's it? Are you saying they compressed risk reduction to high school level stats calculations and a greater than or equal to? To early for this
• andai
  > Once models can perform work that reduces AI risk at the level of human experts, AI(-assisted) output in the area might dwarf unassisted human output.Straightforwardly true.But doesn't this smell like asking an organization to design its own oversight and guardrails?Even before you get to alignment issues, LLMs are really good at generating content that "sounds right" to humans. That's basically what they've been hyper optimized for.At least with math (and to some degree software) we can verify the result. But with the intersection of science fiction, philosophy and ethics... not so much!
• Menu

  no_multitudes
  I often wonder if the people at anthropic actually believe in the existential risk stuff they talk about. If I was convinced AI could kill everyone, my actions would be almost diametrically opposite to theirs -- I would be committed to ceasing the operation of AI labs at any cost.It's easy to say they're just lying and it's marketing hype, but I also think it's possible they really believe the best way to stop an evil superintelligent AI is to work on making superintelligent AIs, but just do it smarter than people at OpenAI would. Humans are bizarre creatures!
• andai
  > To compute Fable 5's score, we used Opus 5 as a fallback in cases where Fable 5 refused to answer a question.Why are they running the gimped version for internal evals?
• hmokiguess
  I think this says as much as the leader on the index as it says about the loser. If I believe I do not want to trust the AI to know best what is it that I want done, then this tells me not to go with Anthropic.
• jesse_dot_id
  I think we can mostly eyeball it at this point. There hasn't been a model that I've thrown a novel problem at that didn't turn into an iterative token bonfire until I intervened and until that has changed, most of these benchmarks feel kind of like pointless marketing slop.
• healthycoder
  Do we really know if these scores make any sense?
• Menu

  behnamoh
  I don't remember any company in world's history that has both been loved and hated by the same users who purchase from it. We love Anthropic for its amazing models, and we hate them for all the shenanigans around the models, including their marketing.I kinda wish they had not made a comeback after Claude 2.
• Aeroi
  missing the the 2010 era of technology. it's becoming information overload.
• Menu

  crossthestreams
  New Trust Me Bro benchmark just dropped
• blueaquilae
  Looks like they don't have any responses to others players occupying the news. Everyday you see a blog post that doesn't address our daily concerns.
• chrisjj
  How many benchmarks did they have to reject in the search for one that scores them top?
• philipwhiuk
  Is a new benchmark that useful if existing model improvements are being reflected linearly? Don't we want a benchmark that we aren't seeing much progress in.
• fractorial
  I would love for someone to give me a coherent argument as to how this isn’t tone-deaf, vacuous garbage.
• stldev
  [dead]
• 0x70run
  [flagged]
• Menu

  mikert89
  [flagged]