In Feb 2022, Paul Christiano wrote: Eliezer and I publicly stated some predictions about AI performance on the IMO by 2025.... My final prediction (after significantly revising my guesses after looking up IMO questions and medal thresholds) was:
I'd put 4% on "For the 2022, 2023, 2024, or 2025 IMO an AI built before the IMO is able to solve the single hardest problem" where "hardest problem" = "usually problem #6, but use problem #3 instead if either: (i) problem 6 is geo or (ii) problem 3 is combinatorics and problem 6 is algebra." (Would prefer just pick the hardest problem after seeing the test but seems better to commit to a procedure.)
Maybe I'll go 8% on "gets gold" instead of "solves hardest problem."
Eliezer spent less time revising his prediction, but said (earlier in the discussion):
My probability is at least 16% [on the IMO grand challenge falling], though I'd have to think more and Look into Things, and maybe ask for such sad little metrics as are available before I was confident saying how much more. Paul?
EDIT: I see they want to demand that the AI be open-sourced publicly before the first day of the IMO, which unfortunately sounds like the sort of foolish little real-world obstacle which can prevent a proposition like this from being judged true even where the technical capability exists. I'll stand by a >16% probability of the technical capability existing by end of 2025
So I think we have Paul at <8%, Eliezer at >16% for AI made before the IMO is able to get a gold (under time controls etc. of grand challenge) in one of 2022-2025.
Resolves to YES if either Eliezer or Paul acknowledge that an AI has succeeded at this task.
Related market: https://manifold.markets/MatthewBarnett/will-a-machine-learning-model-score-f0d93ee0119b
Update: As noted by Paul, the qualifying years for IMO completion are 2023, 2024, and 2025.
Update 2024-06-21: Description formatting
Update 2024-07-25: Changed title from "by 2025" to "by the end of 2025" for clarity
https://openai.com/index/learning-to-reason-with-llms/
Looks like you don't even need specific math fine-tuning to solve math competitions, you just need non-constant compute time for LLMs (So they spend more time on hard problems)
@Austin if a model gets gold that:
almost certainly didn't see the questions beforehand
it's unclear how much computation time it spent
it's unclear how many attempts were made
it's unclear exactly what procedure was used
Paul and Yud make no statement
General consensus is that an AI got an IMO gold
How do you imagine you will resolve the question?
There are also validation issues. The IMO Grand Challenge this is based on requires the model be open sourced before IMO so that people can be sure it actually solved the problems without seeing them in advance.
But what it means to "get gold" for an AI is just very ambiguous, so a lot of this will come down to subjective judgment unless we get more explicit criteria.
Like I said, Paul said one thing and Eliezer said a different thing. See the second quote in the question
EDIT: I see they want to demand that the AI be open-sourced publicly before the first day of the IMO, which unfortunately sounds like the sort of foolish little real-world obstacle which can prevent a proposition like this from being judged true even where the technical capability exists. I'll stand by a >16% probability of the technical capability existing by end of 2025
This is why I think you shouldn't put too much import on markets in how random people (even famous ones) resolve a bet. Unless you just accept that it will be underspecified and significantly based on vibes
That's true, but I think Austin (understandably) misread what Eliezer's position was (or was going off of the initial position rather than the edited one). But then Austin explicitly clarified it as end of year 2025 in the 2024-07-25 update. So... @Austin can you edit the question to make this clear?
@MikhailDoroshenko actually, your quote is also in the original LW post - that's a direct quote from Paul, not from me. My understanding is that Eliezer started with "before IMO" but then the technical details of open sourcing etc led him to update to "end of 2025"; Paul didn't reference this technicality in his own framing of the bet.
Per my original market description, I will resolve this market yes if either Eliezer or Paul confirm this has happened, meaning in the case of a disagreement between the two this market would still resolve yes (ofc I would wait for them to confer and try to reach agreement first). So at present, "end of 2025" is still the eligible timeframe, unless @EliezerYudkowsky weighs in otherwise.
@MikhailDoroshenko yeah, all of that's reasonable, but (also stating the obvious, for the record) ultimately it comes down to which of these possible criteria Eliezer and Paul decide to use, and there are a ton of different possibilities.
@Vesperstelo I think it’s very important that humans had to entirely reformat the questions for this to work
The programs [...] were, to most people, simply "astonishing": computers were solving algebra word problems, proving theorems in geometry and learning to speak English. Few at the time would have believed that such "intelligent" behavior by machines was possible at all. Researchers expressed an intense optimism in private and in print, predicting that a fully intelligent machine would be built in less than 20 years.
The above snippet is describing the situation in 1956. Via
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_artificial_intelligence