this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2026
230 points (96.7% liked)

Technology

83098 readers
2746 users here now

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


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The ARC Prize organization designs benchmarks which are specifically crafted to demonstrate tasks that humans complete easily, but are difficult for AIs like LLMs, "Reasoning" models, and Agentic frameworks.

ARC-AGI-3 is the first fully interactive benchmark in the ARC-AGI series. ARC-AGI-3 represents hundreds of original turn-based environments, each handcrafted by a team of human game designers. There are no instructions, no rules, and no stated goals. To succeed, an AI agent must explore each environment on its own, figure out how it works, discover what winning looks like, and carry what it learns forward across increasingly difficult levels.

Previous ARC-AGI benchmarks predicted and tracked major AI breakthroughs, from reasoning models to coding agents. ARC-AGI-3 points to what's next: the gap between AI that can follow instructions and AI that can genuinely explore, learn, and adapt in unfamiliar situations.

You can try the tasks yourself here: https://arcprize.org/arc-agi/3

Here is the current leaderboard for ARC-AGI 3, using state of the art models

  • OpenAI GPT-5.4 High - 0.3% success rate at $5.2K
  • Google Gemini 3.1 Pro - 0.2% success rate at $2.2K
  • Anthropic Opus 4.6 Max - 0.2% success rate at $8.9K
  • xAI Grok 4.20 Reasoning - 0.0% success rate $3.8K.

ARC-AGI 3 Leaderboard
(Logarithmic cost on the horizontal axis. Note that the vertical scale goes from 0% to 3% in this graph. If human scores were included, they would be at 100%, at the cost of approximately $250.)

https://arcprize.org/leaderboard

Technical report: https://arcprize.org/media/ARC_AGI_3_Technical_Report.pdf

In order for an environment to be included in ARC-AGI-3, it needs to pass the minimum “easy for humans” threshold. Each environment was attempted by 10 people. Only environments that could be fully solved by at least two human participants (independently) were considered for inclusion in the public, semi-private and fully-private sets. Many environments were solved by six or more people. As a reminder, an environment is considered solved only if the test taker was able to complete all levels, upon seeing the environment for the very first time. As such, all ARC-AGI-3 environments are verified to be 100% solvable by humans with no prior task-specific training

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SaraTonin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 minutes ago

Tell me again how AGI is just around the corner, Sam

It's almost as if a chatbot isn't actually thinking.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

The humans literally didn’t score 100% though. Why lie?

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 16 minutes ago

John 1.0 and Caroline 1.0 scored 100%

[–] SuspciousCarrot78@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

"...specifically crafted to demonstrate tasks that humans complete easily"

Motherfucker, I can't work out Minesweeper. I got zero fucking chance with your mystery box bloop game.

[–] Diurnambule@jlai.lu 2 points 1 hour ago

Boring game...

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago

AI code is prewritten and is unable to edit that. Humans edit their "code" every second

[–] Tetragrade@leminal.space 5 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

This replay is the funniest shit lmao. Keep building that bridge Claude.

https://arcprize.org/replay/0964128b-a2f5-4c5b-886e-497d893f429d

Interesting that it seems to be perceiving the environment mostly accurately, and is just completely wrong about the purpose of all the game objects.

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I couldn't find replays. Are there more? Also, it is a bit funny that "building the bridge" which at one point seems to be Claude's "chosen goal" is just "running out of moves" and failing the task.

Task failed successfully, Claude. Task failed, successfully.

[–] brianpeiris@lemmy.ca 2 points 36 minutes ago

There's a column linking to replays in the table of tasks here: https://arcprize.org/tasks

[–] hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 hours ago

My understanding is that Claude is particularly geared towards being a tool for people to use rather than a human replacement. That's why they had that whole spat with the Pentagon about a human needing to be in the loop.

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 2 points 4 hours ago

I'm not sure such a general term is factual.

I doubt I can adapt 100%

[–] UnrepentantAlgebra@lemmy.world 9 points 6 hours ago (6 children)

If human scores were included, they would be at 100%, at the cost of approximately $250

Wait, why did it cost real humans $250 to pass the test?

[–] aesopjah@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

it's also an odd metric since only 20-60% of the humans completed it. Very 60% of the time they complete it everytime energy.

Ideally they'd run the bots multiple times through (with no context or training of previous run), but I guess that is cost prohibitive?

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 hours ago

Yeah, this is what I was going to call out. Calling it "100% solvable by humans" and saying "if human scores were included, they would be at 100%" when 20-60% of humans solved each task seems kinda misleading. The AI scores are so low that I don't think this kind of hyperbole is necessary; I assume there are some humans that scored 100%, but I would find it a lot more useful if they said something like "the worst-performing human in our sample was able to solve 45% of the tasks" or whatever. Given that the AIs are still scoring below 1%, that's still pretty dark.

[–] brianpeiris@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 39 minutes ago)

This is my rough upper-bound estimate based on the Technical Report. Human participants were paid to complete and evaluate the tasks at an average fixed fee of $128 plus $5 for solved tasks. So if a panel of humans were tasked with solving the 25 tasks in the public test set, it would be an average of $250 per person. Although, looking at it again, the costs listed for the LLMs is per task, so it would actually be more like $10 per human per task. In any case it's one or two orders of magnitude less than the LLMs.

Participants received a fixed participation fee of $115–$140 for completing the session, along with a $5 performance-based incentive for each environment successfully solved

https://arcprize.org/media/ARC_AGI_3_Technical_Report.pdf

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 5 hours ago

I assume it’s an hourly wage or something. Just because humans can work for free if they choose, doesn’t mean they have no cost associated with them. Just like a company could choose to give away unlimited tokens, those tokens still have a standard cost.

[–] FrankFrankson@lemmy.world 6 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Thatvis how much individual testing humans cost when you buy them in bulk.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 hours ago

If there had been a "Buy 10, Get 1 free" they could've used 11 humans instead of 10 for the same $250.

[–] mapleseedfall@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

Youd have to eat $250 worth of burgers to pass it.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 points 5 hours ago

Because I ain't doing this shit for free.

[–] GreatBlueHeron@lemmy.ca 21 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

It's fun to point at the crappy performance of current technology. But all I can think about is the amount of power and hardware the AI bros are going to burn through trying to improve their results.

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Funnier yet will be if they continue to just train the model on that particular kind of test, invalidating its results in the process.

[–] HaunchesTV@feddit.uk 41 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Grok Reasoning: 0%

Hilarious

[–] brsrklf@jlai.lu 28 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Reasoning is woke propaganda anyway.

load more comments
view more: next ›