6 ms·
Either they overtook other LLMs by simply using more compute (which is reasonable to think as they have a lot of GPUs) or I'm willing to bet there is benchmark
by dbagr 1y ago
Either they overtook other LLMs by simply using more compute (which is reasonable to think as they have a lot of GPUs) or I'm willing to bet there is benchmark contamination. I don't think their engineering team came up with any better techniques than used in training other LLMs, and Elon has a history of making deceptive announcements.
- z7 1y agoHow do you explain Grok 4 achieving new SOTA on ARC-AGI-2, nearly doubling the previous commercial SOTA? https://x.com/arcprize/status/1943168950763950555 https://x.com/arcprize/status/1943168950763950555
- dbagr 1y agoAs I said, either by benchmark contamination (it is semi-private and could have been obtained by persons from other companies which model have been benchmarked) or by having more compute.
- saberience 1y agoThey could still have trained the model in such a way as to focus on benchmarks, e.g. training on more examples of ARC style questions. What I've noticed when testing previous versions of Grok, on paper they were better at benchmarks, but when I used it the responses were always worse than Sonnet and Gemini even though Grok had higher benchmark scores. Occasionally I test Grok to see if it could become my daily driver but it's never produced better answers than Claude or Gemini for me, regardless of what their marketing shows.
- theshrike79 1y agoI use Grok with repomix to review my code and it tends to give decent answers and is a bit better at giving actual actionable issues with code examples than, say Gemini 2.5 pro. But the lack of a CLI tool like codex, claude code or gemini-cli is preventing it from being a daily driver. Launching a browser and having to manually upload repomixed content is just blech. With gemini I can just go `gemini -p "@repomix-output.xml review this code..."`
- djmips 1y agoWell try it again and report back.
- CamperBob2 1y agoThey could still have trained the model in such a way as to focus on benchmarks, e.g. training on more examples of ARC style questions That's kind of the idea behind ARC-AGI. Training on available ARC benchmarks does not generalize. Unless it does... in which case, mission accomplished.
- nwienert 1y agoSeems still possible to spend effort of building up an ARC-style dataset and that would game the test. The ARC questions I saw were not of some completely unknown topic, they were generally hard versions of existing problems in well-known domains. Not super familiar with this area in general though so would be curious if I'm wrong.
- CamperBob2 1y agoARC-AGI isn't question- or knowledge-based, though, but "Infer the pattern and apply it to a new example you haven't seen before." The problems are meant to be easy for humans but hard for ML models, like a next-level CAPTCHA. They have walked back the initial notion that success on the test requires, or demonstrates, the emergence of AGI. But the general idea remains, which is that no amount of pretraining on the publicly-available problems will help solve the specific problems in the (theoretically-undisclosed) test set unless the model is exhibiting genuine human-like intelligence. Getting almost 16% on ARC-AGI-2 is pretty interesting. I wish somebody else had done it, though.
- nwienert 1y agoI’ve seen some of the problems before, like https://o3-failed-arc-agi.vercel.app/ https://o3-failed-arc-agi.vercel.app/ This is not hard to build datasets that have these types of problems in them, and I would expect LLMs to generalize this well. I don’t see how this is any different really than any other type of problem LLMs are good at given they have the dataset to study. I get they keep the test updated with secret problems, but I don’t see how companies can’t game this just by investing in building their own datasets, even if it means paying teams of smart people to generate them.
- ericlewis 1y agoI still dont understand why people point to this chart as any sort of meaning. Cost per task is a fairly arbitrary X axis and in no way representing any sort of time scale.. I would love to be told how they didn't underprice their model and give it an arbitrary amount of time to work.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- vessenes 1y agoanecdotally, output in my tests is pretty good. It's at least competitive to SOTA from other providers right now.