Comment by mediaman
18 hours ago
This is a groundless criticism. TB2.1 is saturated. TB4 is not. Sol xhigh is 90% on TB2.1 but 37% on TB4. Is it also "benchmaxxed"?
Your assumption is that the benchmarks are essentially identical in difficulty, with the only difference being their age and thus whether they could have been trained on.
> Sol xhigh is 90% on TB2.1 but 37% on TB4. Is it also "benchmaxxed"?
A model that was released a couple months ago scores 50% higher than SWE-2, a model released today, on an out-of-sample benchmark. Can I say I’ve come out of this more impressed with Sol?
Like you said, TB2 is saturated. Nobody would bat an eyelash at 90%. And yet here comes SWE-2 coming off top rope with an emphatic 92.4%. this is the definition of bench maxxing.
> A model that was released a couple months ago scores 50% higher than SWE-2, a model released today, on an out-of-sample benchmark. Can I say I’ve come out of this more impressed with Sol?
Wait a second, are we taking into account the massive difference in terms of resources of these two companies?
Irrelevant when they say they're competitive with Fable and Astra. They don't get to then roll that back and then say "but we have less compute!"
You're either competitive or not.
You should use my model then, I spent about 30$ in electricity and used my existing RTX4090. It is not very good, but can you compare it with others really? You can use this service via a private API with a VPN, email me your credit card details for access.
Benchmaxxing is the default case, and always has been.
It's really, really difficult to avoid it even when you care to stop yourself; and it's not even just a problem in machine learning, it's the standard failure mode of all minds capable of learning, human, animal, artificial.
Even pure genetics has this problem. Viruses and cancers also demonstrate this behaviour, with the bench being evolution's only option: reproductive success.
You can't justify it being OK just because it's common. Here, this just makes benchmarks into a low signal and useless marketing number once people get numb to all the 99%s.
Also no idea what viruses and cancers have to do with this. Cancer is surely very poor reproductively because they never spread to other hosts.
Cancer is simply cells breaking free of the cooperative jail. Essentially the grey goo scenario of nano machines. Instead of cooperation they just do their own thing.
Cells have a certain optimised DNA mutation rate kept in check by various machinery. Multi cellular life expects each of these little replication machine to co-operate in the grand scheme of running a body. But it's also required in the grand scheme for DNA to mutate a little bit to ensure population variance. So you could say that cancer is the tax paid for having cooperative yet flexible and adaptive nano machinery.
So yes the propensity for cancer developed under evolutioniary pressure towards a non zero level.
The population could have optimised for zero cancer but it would not have paid for itself in terms of overall population adaptability and survival.
Why would I adapt myself to unseen environments unnecessarily?
You can see possible existing environments even if you explicitly blind yourself to them, through reflections off of environments that you do not blind yourself to. Even with the benchmark excluded, the social zeitgeist that has considered the benchmark and included it or ideas from the benchmark either implicitly or explicitly in their code, documentation, et cetera is still part of your training data.
Because then you could sit under the palm tree and enjoy your free bananas and relax.
Propagation
> Sol xhigh is 90% on TB2.1 but 37% on TB4. Is it also "benchmaxxed"?
Yes.
"Sol xhigh is 90% on TB2.1 but 37% on TB4. Is it also "benchmaxxed"
Yes! extremely sharp RL-fried model. byte perfect hash gates and soak and smoke tests abound.
Fixed benchmarks will be debunked eventually I'd think. Better to use synthetic problems.
Too easy to game the numbers, and too easy to baselessly accuse companies of gaming the numbers, not to mention how you even define that.
Wouldn't work. A dynamic but verifiable problem. Is just a perfect target for a RL environment. If you don't have the verifiable part the benchmark is useless, or really expensive with human review. (Or just open ended)
> Sol xhigh is 90% on TB2.1 but 37% on TB4. Is it also "benchmaxxed"?
Yes? Just like every single model from every single AI lab.
I take it to mean the benchmarks are a marketing line item, as in, to sell this fucking thing you have to go out there and lie and the way everyone is lying is by doing exactly that, lying. They build for benchmarks and build benchmarks for builds.
You want to make money or not , motherfucker? That’s the game. If you have to literally concoct a fabricated bullshit story about how your model hacked its own computer, then go fucking do it. Trillions. Trillions of dollars is what they want, and to sit and think anything other than human nature is at work here can only be possible in the realm of truly delusional people. It’s a dirty world.
Anyways, the other takeaway is that they are having to LIE to make money on models which means commodification has already occurred and we’re in an entirely new phase.
Is Sol benchmaxxed? Of course it is. Altman was caught in previous attempts trying to game benchmarks, does anyone believe that he's found his moral compass and decided to stop exploiting as much as he can get away with?
> Altman was caught in previous attempts trying to game benchmarks
Sounds like something you just made up, or maybe you read it on some other Reddit/HN post and started repeating it because it aligned with your biases.
> does anyone believe that he's found his moral compass and decided to stop exploiting as much as he can get away with?
I don't think "OpenAI" is equivalent to "Sam Altman." I think if OpenAI was intentionally "benchmaxxing" purely for marketing purposes that information would leak, because OpenAI is full of good-faith researchers (although it can be difficult to avoid overfitting even if you're actually trying to improve the model's general abilities)
And lastly I think anyone can actually try Sol themselves and see that's it a good model, or if that's too subjective, it is clearly better than the previous version. The benchmarks are reflecting actual progress and anyone can verify this themselves.
There's this whole discussion going on about agents being more independent now. They don't follow instructions so well, they continue until the problem is done (sometimes too long), they don't ask the user for feedback.
That is a kind of benchmaxing: they are made to complete benchmarks tasks and one-offs well, and no longer work well in tandem with the user.
Regardless what you call it, it's a divergence between what the power user wants and what the model developers want, I think.
2 replies →
Yeah and Astra is much better still
[flagged]
A lot of people seem to be the Antichrist these days. I’d have though we’d get a lull after the millennium but it’s all the rage.
9 replies →
I mean, still benchmaxxed, I happen to not consider that a problem
These firms are literally hiring professionals from all fields to teach procedure
To teach processes that can subsequently be done agentically or in automated chains
Its basically infinite permutations of tool calling, except the tools aren't external, they’re baked in upon birth
So yeah still makes sense that the new benchmark has a low score and the older one has a high score. And sure, one day we wont have to debate it and a new model will ace everything. Do you actually want that day to be today?