Bless uncle Bernie, but the US is in no state to even consider this. It has installed capitalism as its king.

A link to a login wall is just spam.

I’m okay with the downvotes. There’s a stronger anti-AI sentiment now than even just a month ago, and on the whole I think that’s going to be a good thing.

Yes, it was released in March. One important point is that these results are based on the semi-private test set. Perhaps it’s best to wait until it is measured against the fully private test set, but that might not happen for months.

I agree with most of this. I’ve also said in the past that LLMs cannot think, and I think that’s still true for most models. The reason ARC-AGI-3 is interesting is that it was specifically designed to test reasoning, adaptability, novel problem solving, planning, memory, etc. So it was a surprise to me that Astra was able to defeat it so effectively, and that Astra invents algebras for each novel task.

But I agree we can’t trust OpenAI if these results are self-reported, and we may not be able to trust the ARC Prize Foundation fully either. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so we need replication, transparency, and proper open science to confirm things.

I also agree with ARC Prize’s conclusion, that there are still capabilities any AI system would need to demonstrate before we can claim a full general intelligence.

I guess this is being down-voted just because it feels pro-AI. Believe me I get it, you can look at my anti-AI post history. But I think it’s important to also keep an eye out for real signals towards general intelligence, which is why I wanted to share this. I’m not celebrating it, just bringing awareness.

They basically pass the buck to the individual developer without taking any responsibility themselves.

Debian acknowledges that the legal status of material produced by generative AI systems remains the subject of ongoing discussion in many jurisdictions, including questions relating to copyright, authorship, licensing, and potential reproduction of training material.

The responsibility for every contribution rests with the contributor who submits it, who remains accountable for its technical quality, legal acceptability, and suitability for inclusion in Debian.

“It may be illegal or against FOSS, but that’s up to you to decide, good luck I guess”

Not trying to pick a fight with you, friend. I don’t think billionaires should exist. Just saying it’s a bit more complicated than “billionaires bad”.

If you’re referring to American billionaires, I’d probably agree. But I think this section from the article is more accurate and less to do with billionaires:

Confusion and fear are possible reasons why people are becoming less accepting of gender diversity, said Wayne Bernakevitch, founder of the Regina Civic Awareness Action Network, an organization that lobbied in favour of the Parents’ Bill of Rights.

“They’re concerned with finding a house to live in, you know, how do you pay for the next week’s groceries? And so getting into all of this is just a great distraction in their life,” Bernakevitch said in an interview with CBC’s Blue Sky.

Politicians play a critical role in the creation of these attitudes, Leah Hamilton, a professor of business, communication studies and aviation at Mount Royal University, told Blue Sky.

“We have seen over and over throughout history, especially during periods of perceived or real competition for resources like jobs and housing and other things, that politicians will often create scapegoats,” Hamilton said.

my only regret is i’ve already signed this 🍉

ARC Prize maintains multiple tracks around their benchmarks. They have “verified” leaderboards, “community” leaderboards, and they also run the ARC Prize competition.

They update the “verified” leaderboards when they test raw LLMs without sophisticated harnesses. They seem to update this sporadically and only occasionally do press releases or blog posts about new scores. For example, the latest score from Claude Opus 5 (High) is 30% at $20,000, and they didn’t post about that as far as I know. Again, this just the raw LLM without an agentic or world-model harness.

The ARC Prize competition has a harder set of criteria. Participants have to use smaller, open models with a limited compute budget, with open source code, and of course the solutions are verified by ARC Prize at the end of the competition.

The “community” leaderboards, which is what this post is about, are self-reported and not verified by ARC Prize. There are no restrictions on what model is used or limitations on compute. So naturally they aren’t going to make official news releases about those, unless they decide to verify them at some point.

The only reason I chose to post this is that the top solutions seem legitimate, with source code released, and two of them have associated papers.

It think it’s still unwise to talk about these topics in broad terms like AGI and even “intelligence”. We still have to pick the capabilities apart to have useful discussions about them. I agree these games are better tests than many benchmarks, but it’s also important to note that these solutions use a combination of well-designed deterministic harnesses, as well as LLMs. So it’s inaccurate to say that “LLMs have achieved AGI” (not sure if that’s what you were getting at). This feels like an important milestone, but we’ll have to continue to probe for failure cases in other categories of problems.

Aside from emotional intelligence, experience, embodiment, etc., these ARC-AGI-3 solutions all rely on the sandbox being a safe environment to fail. The solutions iterate through the problem thousands of times before coming to a final solution. Many real-world human problems cannot be re-tried safely or efficiently.

Thanks for sharing this!

IMO, we should make it clear that this is unacceptable in Canadian politics.

https://legnb.ca/en/members/current/24/bill-oliver
https://www.newbrunswickpc.ca/contact
https://legnb.ca/en/legislature/contact
https://oic-bci.ca/about-us/contact-us/

$ORIGIN (or equivalently ${ORIGIN}) This expands to the directory containing the program or shared object. Thus, an application located in somedir/app could be compiled with

gcc -Wl,-rpath,'$ORIGIN/../lib'

so that it finds an associated shared object in somedir/lib no matter where somedir is located in the directory hierarchy. This facilitates the creation of “turn-key” applications that do not need to be installed into special directories, but can instead be unpacked into any directory and still find their own shared objects.

https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/ld.so.8.html via https://fzakaria.com/2026/06/21/nix-needs-relocatable-binaries

I think we have to do both. Bans/restrictions to prevent immediate harms (or at least attempt to), and regulation to prevent future harms.

I kinda agree with this, except the machine learning field should bear some responsibility for begetting LLMs. In particular, they got very used to the idea of scraping the internet for huge amounts of data needed for all types of models, and paid less and less attention to how much energy their training and inference was costing versus the value the models were providing. The seeds of the problems with LLMs existed before they landed on the scene.

In case you didn’t hear, Bun was acquired by Anthropic.

If the Zig community carves out a territory of principled engineering like this, I may adopt it as my primary language and make a career out of it. Finally an island of sanity in a sea of slop.

I appreciate you saying that. It’s all good.