Tech01011000

[gaut @0xgaut]

The internet is a bunch of giant cables

[Far El @far__el]

Move away from the scarcity mindset. In order to unlock abundance for all, we need to throw away the barriers to change and innovation.

[Far El @far__el]

Such a bad take. Down with protectionism and bullshit IP laws, let everything accelerate. There are no moats.

[Taelin @VictorTaelin]

I *WAS* WRONG - $10K CLAIMED!

## The Claim

Two days ago, I confidently claimed that "GPTs will NEVER solve the A::B problem". I believed that: 1. GPTs can't truly learn new problems, outside of their training set, 2. GPTs can't perform long-term reasoning, no matter how simple it is. I argued both of these are necessary to invent new science; after all, some math problems take years to solve. If you can't beat a 15yo in any given intellectual task, you're not going to prove the Riemann Hypothesis. To isolate these issues and raise my point, I designed the A::B problem, and posted it here - full definition in the quoted tweet.

## Reception, Clarification and Challenge

Shortly after posting it, some users provided a solution to a specific 7-token example I listed. I quickly pointed that this wasn't what I meant; that this example was merely illustrative, and that answering one instance isn't the same as solving a problem (and can be easily cheated by prompt manipulation).

So, to make my statement clear, and to put my money where my mouth is, I offered a $10k prize to whoever could design a prompt that solved the A::B problem for *random* 12-token instances, with 90%+ success rate. That's still an easy task, that takes an average of 6 swaps to solve; literally simpler than 3rd grade arithmetic. Yet, I firmly believed no GPT would be able to learn and solve it on-prompt, even for these small instances.

## Solutions and Winner

Hours later, many solutions were submitted. Initially, all failed, barely reaching 10% success rates. I was getting fairly confident, until, later that day, @ptrschmdtnlsn and @SardonicSydney submitted a solution that humbled me. Under their prompt, Claude-3 Opus was able to generalize from a few examples to arbitrary random instances, AND stick to the rules, carrying long computations with almost zero errors. On my run, it achieved a 56% success rate.

Through the day, users @dontoverfit (Opus), @hubertyuan_ (GPT-4), @JeremyKritz (Opus) and @parth007_96 (Opus), @ptrschmdtnlsn (Opus) reached similar success rates, and @reissbaker made a pretty successful GPT-3.5 fine-tune. But it was only late that night that @futuristfrog posted a tweet claiming to have achieved near 100% success rate, by prompting alone. And he was right. On my first run, it scored 47/50, granting him the prize, and completing the challenge.

## How it works!?

The secret to his prompt is... going to remain a secret! That's because he kindly agreed to give 25% of the prize to the most efficient solution. This prompt costs $1+ per inference, so, if you think you can improve on that, you have until next Wednesday to submit your solution in the link below, and compete for the remaining $2.5k! Thanks, Bob.

## How do I stand?

Corrected! My initial claim was absolutely WRONG - for which I apologize. I doubted the GPT architecture would be able to solve certain problems which it, with no margin for doubt, solved. Does that prove GPTs will cure Cancer? No. But it does prove me wrong!

Note there is still a small problem with this: it isn't clear whether Opus is based on the original GPT architecture or not. All GPT-4 versions failed. If Opus turns out to be a new architecture... well, this whole thing would have, ironically, just proven my whole point 😅 But, for the sake of the competition, and in all fairness, Opus WAS listed as an option, so, the prize is warranted.

## Who I am and what I'm trying to sell?

Wrong! I won't turn this into an ad. But, yes, if you're new here, I AM building some stuff, and, yes, just like today, I constantly validate my claims to make sure I can deliver on my promises. But that's all I'm gonna say, so, if you're curious, you'll have to find out for yourself (:

####

That's all. Thanks for all who participated, and, again - sorry for being a wrong guy on the internet today! See you.

Gist: https://t.co/qpSlUMXOTU

[Tsarathustra @tsarnick]

Who is the most exceptional person alive today?

[Mark Hamill @MarkHamill]

Is this is now considered #StarWars canon in Chile?🇨🇱
🍺

[Pieter Omtzigt @PieterOmtzigt]

De aardverschuiving bij de verkiezingen van november 2023 kwam niet uit de lucht vallen: er zijn oorzaken zoals de niet nagekomen beloftes van de middenpartijen de afgelopen 20 jaar.
Een kort debatje met Maarten van Rossem bij @op1npo

[Greg Brockman @gdb]

Making a music video with Sora: "this is how the song has always 'looked', it's just that now i get to show you."

https://t.co/a2d7exAw90

[Tanishq Mathew Abraham, Ph.D. @iScienceLuvr]

One of my favorite YouTubers, @3blue1brown, has put out an incredible video explainer about the attention mechanism!

I highly recommend checking it out!

[James Lucas @JamesLucasIT]

Places on Earth that don't look real - thread 🧵

1. Namibia, where the desert meets the ocean

[Logan Kilpatrick @OfficialLoganK]

One of the most exciting things about AI is that it enables people without deep expertise / experience in an area to quickly become extremely competent in that space.

New college / HS grads can tackle problems that would have taken a masters 5 years ago.

[ChatGPT @ChatGPT]

i just love delving what can i say?

[Brett Adcock @adcock_brett]

AI x Robotics is progressing fast.

So, I share the most important research and developments every week.

Here's everything that happened and how to make sense out of it:

[Ethan Mollick @emollick]

I have talked to a lot of executives buying Microsoft Copilot for their firms. Not one seems to have considered what it means to suddenly automate the vast majority of management writing without training or reconsidering the meaning of the work.

From my book, Co-Intelligence:

[roon @tszzl]

remove 99% of your need for approval. leave like 1% craving for the approval of history

[Fallout @Fallout]

Our friends at @elgato have been hard at work on something S.P.E.C.I.A.L.

Limited quantities will be available starting April 11, so keep your eyes peeled!

[Brett Adcock @adcock_brett]

This isn’t because AV’s as a category don’t work

The other AV companies didn’t have what it took to be viable. Nobody can solve self driving with $0.2B

Off by a factor of 30!

Visit SF right now and ride a Waymo - reliable, continuous self driving is here right now

[The Verge @verge]

Instagram makes more money from ads than YouTube does, and it has for years https://t.co/6ZpmUpPAYQ

[Tsarathustra @tsarnick]

Cathie Wood explains how much safer Tesla vehicles are: full self-driving goes 3.2 million miles between accidents