Robotics (using physics sims)

Cybersecurity (red team / blue team)

Math (using automated proof checkers)

Programming (using compilers)

For the record I think robotics is a totally logical place to use this training approach and this is very impressive. But if we zoom out and think about LLMs in general I’m not sure this inspires confidence in AGI arriving any time soon. I would also propose that this is a form of overfitting / training-test contamination.

Take cybersecurity for example. Through brute force techniques you will gradually memorize all of the possible exploits. So when fable breaks into a DoD network everyone is shocked but in reality it basically memorized all possible exploits including some zero day.

I’d be much more interested to see if fables performance is preserved as new exploits arise (NOT zero day - negative day meaning exploits that don’t exist yet). Would fable still find them? Or would they need to retrain it on the new software stack continuously in order to identify the zero days.

This is an important distinction that I have not seen made before.

This analysis by Toby Ord demonstrates why it’s a problem if frontier improvements are coming from reinforcement learning (brute force methods) from a purely computational perspective: https://www.tobyord.com/writing/inefficiency-of-reinforcemen...

SOTA 80% means a practically useless robot. What are they really imagining their ICP to be here?