Technology

83866 readers

5218 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

-5

Is the AI hype still on or have the models plateaued? (optimizedbyotto.com)

submitted 1 month ago by otto@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I tested 9 flagships (Claude 4.6, GPT-5.2, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Kimi K2.5, etc.) in my own mini-benchmark with novel tasks, web search disabled and zero training contamination and no cheating possible.

TL;DR: Claude 4.6 is currently the best reasoning model, GPT-5.2 is overrated, and open-source is catching up fast, in particular Moonshot.ai's Kimi K2.5 seems very capable.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 16 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Obviously, my mini-benchmark only had 6 questions, and I ran it only once. This was obviously not scientifically rigorous. However it was systematic enough to trump just a mere feeling. ... If and when AI usage expands from here, we might actually not drown in AI slop as chances of accidentally crappy results decrease. This makes me positive about the future.

Spoken like a true AI apologist. You ran one test, and you extrapolated your results to an optimistic outcome that conspicuously matches what you wish to be true. Not scientifically rigorous? Bruh, this is the very definition of confirmation bias.

If this is actually a hypothesists you want to test, maybe contact some computer science researchers to see how to best design an experiment. Beyond that, this is virtually the same as flipping a coin once and drawing a conclusion about how often heads is the outcome.

[–] otto@programming.dev 0 points 1 month ago

Actually I set out with the assumption that flagship models would fail even on these fairly simple questions that I have seen them failing on before, but I was suprised they didn't all fail.

load more comments (4 replies)