The point is that, especially for games perceived as being lower-status like MTG and other board games, I'm more inclined to believe the answer is closer to "nobody is willing to pour in the resources to seriously try" as opposed to "we definitively cannot with current science and technology."

There is nothing that, in principle, makes MTG different from poker or bridge, and we have superhuman engines for both.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampelmännchen

One man's modus ponens is another's modus tollens I guess.

The model is just out. It could be good, great even, I don't know. But I do know that this index has Opus 5, one of the worst releases of 26, ahead of Astra. What information are we supposed to deduce from number having gone up?

The obvious ones: in Western sets the king has a cross on top, and Islamic traditions only use abstract shapes. But I wonder if the "usual" designs aren't at least somewhat influenced by the English language specifically. Bishops have a stylized miter and Rooks are a tower with crenellations, but e.g. in Russian Bishop is "elephant" and Rook is "boat". Even in many other Western European languages "Bishop" as in the piece is not the same as bishop as in the religious office, e.g. "fou" in French, "alfil" in Spanish, "Laufer" in German.

You need both sides though :)

What makes it interesting for estimating algorithmic complexity is that \log{n!} \in \Theta(n \log n). One side is obvious as you note, the other less so, but there's a famous trick to do both at once:

\log{n!} = \log{\prod_{h=0}^{n} h} = \sum_{h=0}^{n} \log{h}

Therefore,

\int_0^n \log{x} dx \le \log{n!} \le \int_0^n \log{x+1} dx

with both integrals trivial by parts.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49693068

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

>>>>>>

The new procedure targets inappropriate behavior by parents and spectators directed at children, coaching staff members, referees, match officials, or other parents and spectators. This includes, but is not limited to:

Verbal abuse (insults or profanity), as well as physical assault or shoving of one’s own children;

Verbal abuse, physical assault, or shoving of staff members of one’s own team;

Verbal abuse, physical assault, or shoving of players or staff members of the opposing team;

Continuous challenging, verbal abuse, physical assault, or shoving of referees and match officials;

Verbal or physical altercations with other parents or spectators.

<<<<<<

If that's the situation in, and it can't be stressed enough, a children soccer game, then yes, abandoning the match is probably the right choice. I assume they are only defining a formal procedure for practices that already exist.

For a superintelligent AI trained with methods anywhere close to what we are doing now, killing all humans is the default outcome. I actually think researchers are downplaying the risks to make their arguments more normie-friendly.

I'm also sticking to first-party agents, but that's more because I feel no compelling reason to switch and CLI agents fit well with my spartan technology choices. YMMV.

True.

> Regardless, the result is still valid (...)

If you think the game is rigged, the virtuous thing to do is to point that out and refuse to partecipate; making up your own rules is something I just don't understand, especially since the rule-abiding result would still have been SOTA.

> in the sense of passing the most famous benchmark designed specifically to measure AGI progress

The benchmark does not measure AGI progress or progress towards superhuman intelligence, as explicitly stated by the creators.

On the AGI question: surely you realize this depends on how we define the term? For example, one of the definitions OpenAI originally gave is "capable of doing most economically valuable work", which almost certainly Astra, as impressive as it is, would fall short of. I'm not saying it's a good definition, but as far as I'm concerned it's as good as any. More importantly, I don't think that it would change much if we said yes or no. I'm only bothering to take a position if it amounts to something.

This can feel as "moving the goalposts", and to some extent it is, but if done honestly "moving the goalposts" is how you make progress. Had you asked me 10 years ago I would have said that anything that could hold a conversation like GPT-4 could would probably have been wildly superhuman at almost everything. It shouldn't be hard to find ways GPT-4 was lacking, though. We see new things, we reassess and try again: that's how it's supposed to work.

To an extent I get it, this is not like a normal SaaS where you just buy seats, but their commercial offerings, especially B2C ones, feel like complete amateur hour. If they were selling literally anything else I'd have ran for the hills a long time ago.