This issue had affected a tiny fraction of existing agents in a tiny fraction of their runs. And we've now issued a fix.
This is a natural part of running a benchmark, I'm sure tiny things like this will keep on getting discovered and we'll keep on fixing them. This doesn't change the overall picture or trends at all.
Edit: That said, I’m willing to believe based on the information in the thread that this most likely only affects a tiny fraction of runs.
Obviously having something available during test time is more valuable than buried somewhere in the pretraining mixture. But in pretraining it happens presumably with high probability (why wouldn't coding models pretrain on the entire github), while in test time it apparently happened only very occasionally?
You're all extremely clever and I can't seem to understand how you missed thinking about such a simple edge case. It's like building a chroot and then allowing `cd ..` to break out of it. What other maybe extremely basic edge cases were missed?
> This doesn't change the overall picture or trends at all.
Outsider without financial benefits from the current AI hype might have a different picture. And I'm a bit fed up about AI with fake productivity promises enshittifying nearly all user-facing software that my clients and I are using, bundled with hefty price hikes of Microsoft and the likes in order to pay for their "investments".
I wouldn't be surprised if they left this loophole on purpose to give some (their?) agents extra leverage.
Edit #1: I didn't mean to imply bad intent; just thinking out loud.
Edit #2: Please, downvote responsibly. I deserve every one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FHEeG_uq5Y
> I wouldn't be surprised if they left this loophole on purpose
You didn't imply bad intent, you outright suggested it.
Thinking out loud also doesn't make defamation acceptable.
You're welcome to ask b "would none rid me of this meddlesome priest" with no fear
And listing out "a possibility but you don't want to dig deeper" is often a good contribution to a conversation.
In this case they worded it badly, but the basic idea of the comment isn't awful.
The whole testing enterprise is kind of stupid. Pray tell, if their stupid little benchmark said, "this niche little smaller model performs the best" would anyone listen to it? No.
The thing that is fucked about benchmarks is that we only pay attention to the ones that match these vibes: "The latest models from the biggest companies should perform the best." That's why they are stupid. They could be the most brilliantly administered (they're not), nail execution (they don't), but it still has to confirm vibes.
And listen these guys are serious academics, they're very smart people, but on the other hand, you know, I'm still right. The team doesn't have a secular, objective explanation for why nobody talks about benchmarks that don't confirm the biases of the public for what should perform well. Three people are commenting on just this post alone, but the stuff that I am saying: crickets.
The only reasonable explanation for "why do people ignore [LLM tests that show that some non-giant corporation LLM is the best]?" trades on cultural and humanities stuff that are outside their expertise. They don't see that the stuff the humanities people are saying generalizes to what they do. That would be too inconvenient. Every testing system suffers from this bias anomaly, it's just easier to talk about this with something secular like LLMs compared to say, tests of children.
They hear biases and they're like, "something something, Algorithmic Justice League." Their brains turn off and they think that until someone gets in front of Congress and points a finger, nothing in the humanities applies to them. Wrong. The Princeton lab has probably met with a lot of humanities people, and there was a lot of head shaking and agreement, but it's not like, something that tells them that their whole enterprise doesn't make sense makes them stop and pursue anything else. It's just in one ear and out the other.
Doing free tests for giant corporations to market their shit, and then toiling away in obscurity when the tests do not market huge corporation's shit: it doesn't make sense period. But that's what they're doing.
If you need a simple theory for how Big LLM performs so well on SWE-Bench, it's as simple as: well they've seen the questions by running them, obviously, and someone has also tested the questions in their own personal chatbot sessions sometime in the past, and these are online systems, and OpenAI, Anthropic and Google run ETL pipelines that paraphrase user data for salient inputs to train on, so of course, they've all been trained on the test set. In reality, if these things were so fucking good as SWE Bench said, they'd be making a bajillion bucks making all this enterprise software, or they'd show even 1 novel math discovery, or whatever. But they do not have something as powerful as the benchmarks say, so that doesn't happen.
"Cheating (biology), a metaphor used in behavioral ecology to describe organisms that receive a benefit at the cost of other organisms" [1]
Whole planet gets their Microsoft license fees jacked up so Microsoft can pay OpenAI who in turn pays NVIDIA, and nontechnical decision makers slurping up the faked benchmarks and AI promises.
E.g. cooperating ethics had been necessary for the further development of human populations intelligence (and culture, technology, material wealth, nutrition etc that lead to further increases in intelligence).
So lack of ethics might be a sign of intelligence, but it's also a parasitic intelligence that benefits the individual, and beyond certain level and spread to the detriment of the further evolutionary development of the species.
- don't lie too often
- don't kill members of the in group
Seems like these would be required for any group to survive, which makes sense why they are universal. All other rules/ethics seem to be dependent on resource scarcity.
That doesn't make the rest of the ethics (as a rule and mechanism) any less useful to help nurture the species and its intelligence.
It just makes them not absolute but dynamic and condition dependent. But given a condition (e.g. resource scarcity) the appropriate ethics retain the utility we talk about.
As to whether all groups display those rules - I suspect not - though it rather does depend on how you define a group - the definition of group probably has some sort of colloboration built in ( as oppose to a bunch of indviduals that happen to live in the same geographic area ).