Hacker News Reader

Comment by gkamradt | Hacker News Reader

Ah yes, two things

1. We had a no-data retention agreement with them. We were assured by the highest level of their company + security division that the box our test was run on would be wiped after testing

2. We only tested o3 against the semi-private set. We didn't test it with the private eval.

View on HN

Are you aware that OpenAI brazenly lied and went back on its word about its corporate structure, board governance, and for-profit status, and of the opinion that your data sharing agreement is different and less likely to be ignored? Or are you at step zero where you aren’t considering malfeasance as a possibility at all?

Makes sense, particularly part 2 until "the final results" are needed. Thanks for taking the time to answer my question!

>> We were assured by the highest level of their company + security division that the box our test was run on would be wiped after testing

Yuri Geller assured us he was bending the spoons with his mind. Somehow it was only when the Amazing Randi was present that Yuri Geller couldn't bend the spoons with his mind.

Ironically "I have a magic AI test but nobody is allowed to use it" is a lot closer to the Yuri Geller situation. Tests are meant to be taken, that should be clear. And...maybe this does not apply in the academic domain, but to some extent if you cheat on an AI test "you're only cheating yourself."

> but to some extent if you cheat on an AI test "you're only cheating yourself."

You cheat investors.

And end users and developers and the general public too...

But here is the thing, I feel that even if its rote memorizing why GPT4o couldn't perform just as well on ArcAGI 1 on it or did the "reasoning" help in any way?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com