cdetrio

We found 500 zero-days in ten year old widely used open-source projects. Was that not a demonstration of the catastrophic failure of human debugging capability?

The Duke harness was specifically designed for these puzzles, that's why they don't want to measure it.

My reading of that part in the technical report (models "could be using their own tools behind the model’s API, which is a blackbox"), is that there's no way to prevent it.

But from fchollet's comment here, using tools and harnesses is encouraged, as long as they are generic and not arc-agi specific. In that case, the models should be benchmarked by prompting through claude code and codex, rather than the through API (as from the api we only expect raw LLM output, and no tool use).

Are you prompting the models through their APIs, which are not designed to use tools or harnesses? Or do the "system prompt" results come from prompting into the applications (i.e. claude code, or codex, or even the web front-ends)?

very interesting, thanks for sharing.

Textbook models typically simulate normal development of an embryo, e.g. A-P and D-V (anterior-posterior and dorsal-ventral) patterning. The question Levin raises is how a perturbed embryo manages to develop normally, both "picasso tadpoles" where a scrambled face will re-organize into a normal face, and tadpoles with eyes transplanted to their tails, where an optic nerve forms across from the tail to the brain and a functional eye develops.

I haven't thoroughly read all of Levin's papers, so I'm not sure to what extent they specifically address the issue of whether textbook models of morphogen gradients can or cannot account for these experiments. I'd guess that it is difficult to say conclusively. You might have to use one of the software packages for simulating multi-cellular development, regulatory logic, and morphogen gradients/diffusion, if you wanted to argue either "the textbook model can generate this behavior" or that the textbook model cannot.

The simulations/models that I'm familiar with are quite basic, relative to actual biology, e.g. models of drosophila eve stripes are based on a few dozen genes or less. But iiuc, our understanding of larval development and patterning of C Elegans is far behind that of drosophila (the fly embryo starts as a syncytium, unlike worms and vertebrates, which makes fly segmentation easier to follow). I haven't read about Xenopus (the frogs that Levin studies), but I'd guess that we are very far from being able to simulate all the way from embryo to facial development in the normal case, let alone the abnormal picasso and "eye on tail" tadpoles.

"Some people become depressed at the scale of the universe, because it makes them feel insignificant. Other people are relieved to feel insignificant, which is even worse. But, in any case, those are mistakes. Feeling insignificant because the universe is large has exactly the same logic as feeling inadequate for not being a cow. Or a herd of cows. The universe is not there to overwhelm us; it is our home, and our resource. The bigger the better." -- David Deutsch

Those papers say the virus is natural and wasn't engineered by humans. The OP link is about the theory that origin event is a natural virus escaping from a lab. A wild-type virus specimen obtained from bats in the wild that was being studied in the lab (not engineered or modified in the lab).

Many futures exchanges are open 24 hours on weekdays (perhaps with 15 minute gaps), but not weekends. Can you link to one that's open on the weekends?