daytonellwanger

I'm definitely not trying to claim that evolution and creation are equally legitimate explanations. There are so many bizarre things that require ridiculous explanations from creationists (like the devil intentionally creating a misleading fossil record to trick humans). That's the point I was trying to make with the planets example in a less loaded way.

Can someone tell me what the catch is? To outperform the state-of-the-art so drastically would be massive news, and surely the ARC Foundation would have tested this against the private data set, right?

From what I gathered from the page, you're consultants for building AI solutions.

Nice!

My feedback would be: - There are no concrete examples of what you've done. - It leans too heavily and too vaguely on the relationship with Anthropic.

I know it's explicitly not the topic of this article, but I'd love to see the comparison to handing the model tools and sending it off to investigate for this incident.

I think it's spot-on that this is where you're most likely to have issues and most likely to run up a large bill.

It was interesting to see confirmation, but also not surprising that frontier models are good at reasoning. I assume if they can solve IMO problems they can root cause an incident (given the right context).

We're definitely in a world where the models are smart enough. We just need to hand them good context.

Nice work! Apparently the docs are solid - my LLM successfully translated a TypeScript program with the original program and the docs URL as the only input