This issue had affected a tiny fraction of existing agents in a tiny fraction of their runs. And we've now issued a fix.
This is a natural part of running a benchmark, I'm sure tiny things like this will keep on getting discovered and we'll keep on fixing them. This doesn't change the overall picture or trends at all.
The comment you link to says that "we only performed a quick preliminary search" and "We do not have a method for automatically checking existing trajectories." In other words, it can't confirm that the issue only "affected a tiny fraction of existing agents in a tiny fraction of their runs" as you say. Are you saying that you have since separately confirmed this?
Edit: That said, I’m willing to believe based on the information in the thread that this most likely only affects a tiny fraction of runs.
Unfortunately the bank account trajectories are not public, because unscupulous corporations such FAANG who let thousands of engineers wade through my chat messages on their platforms might not shy away from bribing academics to improve benchmarks of their billion-dollar AI initiatives.
It's also a bribe if my sibling gets a job with $500k annual salary. Tech is not immune to it.
I'm sure some of the people working at Theranos thought there legitimately was a revolutionary blood-test machine.
The presence of a person who wants SWE-bench to have honest results and takes it seriously does not mean the results are free of perverse incentives, nor that everyone is behaving just as honestly.
the strange thing to me is that people would have it any other way. if you don't trust someone, why would you trust them to do the research for you? bit of entitlement if you ask me
Because you should never just 'trust' random 'research'. Good analysis in this case will clearly explain the problem, the analysis methodology, findings, net effects, resolution, etc. Something you can read, and decide for yourself whether it is complete/incomplete, has holes, contradictions, etc. Not 'we looked into it and all is good - only potentially tiny effect' (no actual data or methodology presented at all) and then linking to a comment directly contradicting the claim...
It's a hilariously unserious and untrustworthy response.
Arguably the initial post was meant to convey confidence and authority on the subject. When questioned you could either dive deeper and explain in more detail why x because of y (if so inclined), ignore it, or... do what they did.
No one owes anyone anything, but if you want to represent something; answering the question more in detail would have either closed the issue or raised more scrutiny, both of which are a good thing when trying to figure something out.
I don't have to trust someone to check their research and look at how they worked. If the work doesn't pass muster, likely the results don't either. Again, you can view it as entitlement, but if you're not going to bother backing up your claim, why make the claim to start with?
It's not that people are entitled. It's that "do your own research" is usually a cop out when you yourself don't understand the answer or are hiding it
Even if this bug never existed, models can still see lookahead commits during pretraining. Do we expect this bug to have a greater impact than the pretraining leakage?
Obviously having something available during test time is more valuable than buried somewhere in the pretraining mixture. But in pretraining it happens presumably with high probability (why wouldn't coding models pretrain on the entire github), while in test time it apparently happened only very occasionally?
> This is a natural part of running a benchmark, I'm sure tiny things like this will keep on getting discovered and we'll keep on fixing them.
You're all extremely clever and I can't seem to understand how you missed thinking about such a simple edge case. It's like building a chroot and then allowing `cd ..` to break out of it. What other maybe extremely basic edge cases were missed?
> This doesn't change the overall picture or trends at all.
Outsider without financial benefits from the current AI hype might have a different picture. And I'm a bit fed up about AI with fake productivity promises enshittifying nearly all user-facing software that my clients and I are using, bundled with hefty price hikes of Microsoft and the likes in order to pay for their "investments".
I'm also on the SWE-bench team. This was simply a classic bug. We had code before that we believed was sufficient to hide / remove future GitHub history and it turns out it was not. We've patched it.
[Also on the SWE-bench team] Part of the reason why this didn't surface earlier was that it only seems to affect more recent models, maybe the result of reward hacking during posttraining. We're currently working on making trajectories easier to access for everyone through a web tool (rather than having to download things from aws) to get even more eyes on the trajectories. The interface will also include search & LM inspection tools to specifically look for anything that might qualify as cheating.
> other maybe extremely basic edge cases were missed?
The whole testing enterprise is kind of stupid. Pray tell, if their stupid little benchmark said, "this niche little smaller model performs the best" would anyone listen to it? No.
The thing that is fucked about benchmarks is that we only pay attention to the ones that match these vibes: "The latest models from the biggest companies should perform the best." That's why they are stupid. They could be the most brilliantly administered (they're not), nail execution (they don't), but it still has to confirm vibes.
And listen these guys are serious academics, they're very smart people, but on the other hand, you know, I'm still right. The team doesn't have a secular, objective explanation for why nobody talks about benchmarks that don't confirm the biases of the public for what should perform well. Three people are commenting on just this post alone, but the stuff that I am saying: crickets.
The only reasonable explanation for "why do people ignore [LLM tests that show that some non-giant corporation LLM is the best]?" trades on cultural and humanities stuff that are outside their expertise. They don't see that the stuff the humanities people are saying generalizes to what they do. That would be too inconvenient. Every testing system suffers from this bias anomaly, it's just easier to talk about this with something secular like LLMs compared to say, tests of children.
They hear biases and they're like, "something something, Algorithmic Justice League." Their brains turn off and they think that until someone gets in front of Congress and points a finger, nothing in the humanities applies to them. Wrong. The Princeton lab has probably met with a lot of humanities people, and there was a lot of head shaking and agreement, but it's not like, something that tells them that their whole enterprise doesn't make sense makes them stop and pursue anything else. It's just in one ear and out the other.
Doing free tests for giant corporations to market their shit, and then toiling away in obscurity when the tests do not market huge corporation's shit: it doesn't make sense period. But that's what they're doing.
If you need a simple theory for how Big LLM performs so well on SWE-Bench, it's as simple as: well they've seen the questions by running them, obviously, and someone has also tested the questions in their own personal chatbot sessions sometime in the past, and these are online systems, and OpenAI, Anthropic and Google run ETL pipelines that paraphrase user data for salient inputs to train on, so of course, they've all been trained on the test set. In reality, if these things were so fucking good as SWE Bench said, they'd be making a bajillion bucks making all this enterprise software, or they'd show even 1 novel math discovery, or whatever. But they do not have something as powerful as the benchmarks say, so that doesn't happen.
You could rewrite it a 1000 times, if the underlying idea is the same, suggesting something you don't know it's true, the outcome would be the same. Or did you mean something else? What was your intention with the message?
never attribute something to malice which can be attributed to incompetence. Basically, this has been utilized plenty of times by some really smart folk to get what they want.
reward hacking is a thing and is also a hint of the models intelligent. We will fix this one, and the models will find a different way to reward hack in the future. "Cheating" is a sign of intelligence
I love the "cheating is a sign of intelligence" sound bite you provided.
When AI engineers cheat we should applaud their intelligence and their lack of ethics.
"Cheating (biology), a metaphor used in behavioral ecology to describe organisms that receive a benefit at the cost of other organisms" [1]
Whole planet gets their Microsoft license fees jacked up so Microsoft can pay OpenAI who in turn pays NVIDIA, and nontechnical decision makers slurping up the faked benchmarks and AI promises.
would it have been better if I called it "shortcut" instead of cheating? all shortcuts are called cheating until people decide on it's fairness. the AI has been given a task to fix a bug, the AI figured out that looking at other PR might yield a solution, if it was a human that did so, it would clearly be called cheating. Does AI know that it's cheating? Was it prompted to solve it without cheating? If you give AI access to the internet and quiz it, it would use info from the net to answer. Does that really skew it's score? Is it cheating? Is it a sign of intelligence? Sure, I think all of those.
Different, but probably not as orthogonal as one might think.
E.g. cooperating ethics had been necessary for the further development of human populations intelligence (and culture, technology, material wealth, nutrition etc that lead to further increases in intelligence).
So lack of ethics might be a sign of intelligence, but it's also a parasitic intelligence that benefits the individual, and beyond certain level and spread to the detriment of the further evolutionary development of the species.
Aren't there only two rules that all groups follow in the animal kingdom?
- don't lie too often
- don't kill members of the in group
Seems like these would be required for any group to survive, which makes sense why they are universal. All other rules/ethics seem to be dependent on resource scarcity.
>All other rules/ethics seem to be dependent on resource scarcity
That doesn't make the rest of the ethics (as a rule and mechanism) any less useful to help nurture the species and its intelligence.
It just makes them not absolute but dynamic and condition dependent. But given a condition (e.g. resource scarcity) the appropriate ethics retain the utility we talk about.
I was going to argue "LLM's need code samples to-do well on languages and if we are honest C# is a language mostly held in private repo's" but Github's 2024 report[0] says its the 5th most used language (I'm to lazy to check if this report includes private repo's but I'll assume it doesn't).
Because RL time is expensive and I don't think the languages which are more popular than C# have such high performance that it's worth bumping their batches for C#.
So the "Verified" part of "SWE Bench Verified" means.. not "Verified" at all.
I don't get it, who is so opposed to doing the bare minimum of manual work and check what these models are doing? At least back in the day grad students doing an easy meta-paper understood it meant doing some repetitive manual work. Now we got benchmarks by hype vendors who think they can use the thing they are benchmarking to .. mark the bench.
The "Verified" part of "SWE-Bench Verified" means that there was plain "SWE-Bench" before it, which had actually not been verified at all and included a lot of tasks that didn't really make sense for use as a benchmark: https://openai.com/index/introducing-swe-bench-verified/#ada...
Data contamination stemming from the fact that it's based on already-solved problems in public repositories is a different issue that cannot be addressed by verifying the benchmark questions harder, but only by putting stricter limits on the model under test.
[On the SWE-bench team] As someone pointed out SWE-bench Verified is a subset of tasks that were reviewed to be solvable (i.e., have enough context in the task description) as well are scored with unit tests that aren't overly specific to rule out valid solutions.
We've all read & analyzed a large number of agent trajectories. This loophole seems to be something that popped up with the more recent models and we simply weren't aware of it.
As discussed in the github issue, there's a fix in the new version of the SWE-bench containers (currently being rolled out) that makes sure that the relevant commits aren't available.
Part of what makes SWE-bench a very interesting benchmark is the enormous action space that agents that compete on it can take. However that also means that there's unexpected things happening when models get better. We're currently working on making all agent runs easily browsable on a website (rather than having to download our AWS buckets) to get even more eyes on the trajectories. Thanks to everyone who uncovered this loophole.
Personally I don't look at or respect LLM benchmarks at all. I've seen SOTA models fail in incredibly shocking ways even recently. Those moments immediately bring me out of the delusion that LLMs have thinking capacity or an understanding of code.
It’s such a strange delusion too, because it’s easy to get caught up in for a moment and it’s easy to remember “oh no this thing is as smart as a bag of bricks”.
What strikes me more is how these companies sell their AI offerings - we watched an OpenAI presentation about spec-driven development recently and the presenter was fairly, idk, fine enough if maybe a bit grandiose. But what really nagged me was the way he ended his presentation with something along the lines of “we’re excited to see AGI continue to grow” and it’s honestly A) depressing and B) downright fraud - there is no current AGI to speak of, it’s all just guessing the string of words that sound best together and this OpenAI rep _knows this_.
They know that no amount of up-front spec writing will prevent bugs.
They know that their LLM doesn’t “know” anything in an actually meaningful way.
They know that calling what they have “AGI” is aspirational at best and lying at worst.
epochs ago when random forest was part of machine learning nomenclature, we had a strong claim from an adjacent team in the form of a powerpoint circulated upwards that they had achieved almost perfect prediction accuracy.
We relatively quickly identified that the testing set are taken directly from the training set, but the claim has been advertised already so they were more difficult to retract... if it were at all, I left shortly after.
The incentives are not aligned with accurate reporting.
...even if the agent did "cheat", I think that having the capacity to figure out that it was being evaluated, find the repo containing the logic of that evaluation, and find the expected solution to the problem it faced... is "better" than anything that the models were able to do a couple years ago.
hah the model should get extra credit for discovering this!
> Now I understand the situation perfectly! The issue described in the problem statement is a real bug that was already identified and fixed in later versions of pytest. Since we're working with pytest 5.2.4, we need to apply the same fix.
swe-bench's bigger problems include (1) labs train on the test and (2) 50% of the tickets are from django; it's not a representative dataset even if all you care about is Python.
I created a new benchmark from Java commits that are new in the past 6 months to add some variety: https://brokk.ai/power-ranking
It's honestly ridiculous they left git history lying around during a benchmark, and this benchmark made to ICLR in Jan 2024 and no one has detected this issue until now. I don't really trust any benchmarking or tools or claims from this space when they can make such huge basic errors.
There was a lot of speculation whether or not the model would use them or even if it would attempt to use them and they noted this months ago. Now they have clear evidence of them doing so. Seems reasonable.
[On swe-bench team] We read and analyzed a lot of trajectories but seems like only recently models have started to exploit this in a small fraction of instances. But yes, clearly shouldn't have happened (and is now fixed in the new container versions).
Someone did comment that it's actually smart to check if something is fixed on the unstable branch, or I suppose in your coworkers' branches. A good task for an LLM.
If I was doing those tasks, and I found that someone had already fixed it in a future (from my git state) commit, I'd think I was being pretty smart to use that solution too.
Turns out the test shouldn't have the answers included in it?
That the answers have been available to them in the environment, and they’re still not hitting 100% on this benchmark is a damning indictment of SOTA model performance.
It really isn't. Do you expect SOTA models to answer any answered question on the internet with 100% accuracy? Congrats you just compressed the whole internet (at least a few zettabytes) into a model (a few TB at most?).
The linked ticket isn’t suggesting the commit is in the training data. It’s demonstrating that models run ‘git log’, find the exact code to fix the issue against which they’ll be scored, and then they implement that code as-is.
The test environment contains the answers to the questions.
Well, we're dealing with (near) superintelligence here, according to the companies that created the models. Not only would I expect them to regurgitate the answers they were trained on, which includes practically the entire internet, but I would expect them to answer questions they weren't trained on. Maybe not with 100% accuracy, but certainly much higher than they do now.
It's perfectly reasonable to expect a level of performance concordant with the marketing of these tools. Claiming this is superintelligence, while also excusing its poor performance is dishonest and false advertising.
i mean, if a human was claiming they could do that and successfully received billions to attempt to do it, and fail to deliver, i'd be railing against that particular human too
I think Oracle's stock mostly popped due to a delayed reaction with the US GSA contract it secured in July and the revenue guidance probably related to it:
Lol...That contract has Oracle offering licenses at a discount of 75% and is estimated to make them not more than one 1 Billion. The other big contract on Cloud services the DoD JWCC is $8B to 9B but shared by four vendors (AWS, Microsoft, Google, Oracle) and Oracle orders under it are in the hundreds of millions not even 1 Billion...
Wall Street is currently heavily punishing any company who misses their quarter, including NVIDIA!, after beating on their quarter.
Oracle had a earnings miss in the current quarter!
Their current REALITY is ~$15B quarterly revenue (with cloud infra ~$3B) and only ~$12B in near-term deferred backlog and deferred backlog is NOT revenue. To justify the valuation, this would imply OCI going from ~$18B in FY26 to ~$140B by FY30 that is an insane promise of +$120B in 4 years but back-loaded into the year 3 or year 4. :-))
Capex needs ~$35B next year just to chase GPUs/power and if they miss one quarter the story implodes. The supposed rational, efficient market, is paying near $1T today for back-loaded hopes.
Is completely bubble math. Like anybody, including Oracle AND their Customers, have ANY idea of their Capex in 4 years.
Regardless of whether, during this particular evaluation, Claude 4 Sonnet looked at the solution to this particular problem in this particular git repo, this seems like a long-term intractable problem.
How can we ever perform this sort of faux-neutral agentic evaluation in an environment where we want agents to have access to the sum total of knowledge (which will necessarily include being able to learn about the evaluation being conducted and its expectations)?
I challenge you! Try giving this exact prompt to GPT-5-Thinking (medium or high reasoning if API). It is able to (without external code tools) solve a never before seen cypher that is not present in its training data. I think this pretty clearly demonstrates that the “stochastic parrot” is no longer an apt description of its capabilities in generalization:
————
You are given a character-by-character decode table `mapping` and a `ciphertext`. Decode by replacing each ciphertext character `c` with `mapping[c]` (i.e., mapping maps ciphertext → plaintext). Do not guess; just apply the mapping.
Return *ONLY* this JSON (no prose, no extra keys, no code fences):
{
"decoded_prefix": "<first 40 characters of the decoded plaintext>",
"last_10": "<last 10 characters of the decoded plaintext>",
"vowel_counts": {"a": <int>, "e": <int>, "i": <int>, "o": <int>, "u": <int>}
}
It's cute that you think your high-school level cypher is probably not seen in the training set of one of the biggest LLMs in the world. Surely no one could have thought of such a cypher, let alone create exercises around it!
No one should ever make claims such as "X is not in <LLM>'s training set". You don't know. Even if your idea is indeed original, nothing prevents someone from having though of it before, and published it. The history of science is full of simultaneous discoveries, and we're talking cutting-edge research.
[I'm on the SWE-bench team] Multiple people have looked into this, for example right in that thread: https://github.com/SWE-bench/SWE-bench/issues/465#issuecomme...
This issue had affected a tiny fraction of existing agents in a tiny fraction of their runs. And we've now issued a fix.
This is a natural part of running a benchmark, I'm sure tiny things like this will keep on getting discovered and we'll keep on fixing them. This doesn't change the overall picture or trends at all.
The comment you link to says that "we only performed a quick preliminary search" and "We do not have a method for automatically checking existing trajectories." In other words, it can't confirm that the issue only "affected a tiny fraction of existing agents in a tiny fraction of their runs" as you say. Are you saying that you have since separately confirmed this?
Edit: That said, I’m willing to believe based on the information in the thread that this most likely only affects a tiny fraction of runs.
Ya what he links directly contradicts what he's saying lol
The trajectories are all public, you're welcome to do your own analysis.
Unfortunately the bank account trajectories are not public, because unscupulous corporations such FAANG who let thousands of engineers wade through my chat messages on their platforms might not shy away from bribing academics to improve benchmarks of their billion-dollar AI initiatives.
It's also a bribe if my sibling gets a job with $500k annual salary. Tech is not immune to it.
You realize that this problem in SWE-Bench was discovered and publicized by people within those FAANG corporations?
I'm sure some of the people working at Theranos thought there legitimately was a revolutionary blood-test machine.
The presence of a person who wants SWE-bench to have honest results and takes it seriously does not mean the results are free of perverse incentives, nor that everyone is behaving just as honestly.
If you are going to represent your team in public, you owe them better than a response like this.
I say let them cook.
That sounds like the job of the person making the claim.
Are you saying you've done way more than a cursory search and ruled out everything?
They really did a "trust me bro" and "do your own research" huh
the strange thing to me is that people would have it any other way. if you don't trust someone, why would you trust them to do the research for you? bit of entitlement if you ask me
Because you should never just 'trust' random 'research'. Good analysis in this case will clearly explain the problem, the analysis methodology, findings, net effects, resolution, etc. Something you can read, and decide for yourself whether it is complete/incomplete, has holes, contradictions, etc. Not 'we looked into it and all is good - only potentially tiny effect' (no actual data or methodology presented at all) and then linking to a comment directly contradicting the claim...
It's a hilariously unserious and untrustworthy response.
Arguably the initial post was meant to convey confidence and authority on the subject. When questioned you could either dive deeper and explain in more detail why x because of y (if so inclined), ignore it, or... do what they did.
No one owes anyone anything, but if you want to represent something; answering the question more in detail would have either closed the issue or raised more scrutiny, both of which are a good thing when trying to figure something out.
I don't have to trust someone to check their research and look at how they worked. If the work doesn't pass muster, likely the results don't either. Again, you can view it as entitlement, but if you're not going to bother backing up your claim, why make the claim to start with?
It's not that people are entitled. It's that "do your own research" is usually a cop out when you yourself don't understand the answer or are hiding it
Even if this bug never existed, models can still see lookahead commits during pretraining. Do we expect this bug to have a greater impact than the pretraining leakage?
Obviously having something available during test time is more valuable than buried somewhere in the pretraining mixture. But in pretraining it happens presumably with high probability (why wouldn't coding models pretrain on the entire github), while in test time it apparently happened only very occasionally?
> This is a natural part of running a benchmark, I'm sure tiny things like this will keep on getting discovered and we'll keep on fixing them.
You're all extremely clever and I can't seem to understand how you missed thinking about such a simple edge case. It's like building a chroot and then allowing `cd ..` to break out of it. What other maybe extremely basic edge cases were missed?
> This doesn't change the overall picture or trends at all.
Outsider without financial benefits from the current AI hype might have a different picture. And I'm a bit fed up about AI with fake productivity promises enshittifying nearly all user-facing software that my clients and I are using, bundled with hefty price hikes of Microsoft and the likes in order to pay for their "investments".
I'm also on the SWE-bench team. This was simply a classic bug. We had code before that we believed was sufficient to hide / remove future GitHub history and it turns out it was not. We've patched it.
[Also on the SWE-bench team] Part of the reason why this didn't surface earlier was that it only seems to affect more recent models, maybe the result of reward hacking during posttraining. We're currently working on making trajectories easier to access for everyone through a web tool (rather than having to download things from aws) to get even more eyes on the trajectories. The interface will also include search & LM inspection tools to specifically look for anything that might qualify as cheating.
> other maybe extremely basic edge cases were missed?
The whole testing enterprise is kind of stupid. Pray tell, if their stupid little benchmark said, "this niche little smaller model performs the best" would anyone listen to it? No.
The thing that is fucked about benchmarks is that we only pay attention to the ones that match these vibes: "The latest models from the biggest companies should perform the best." That's why they are stupid. They could be the most brilliantly administered (they're not), nail execution (they don't), but it still has to confirm vibes.
And listen these guys are serious academics, they're very smart people, but on the other hand, you know, I'm still right. The team doesn't have a secular, objective explanation for why nobody talks about benchmarks that don't confirm the biases of the public for what should perform well. Three people are commenting on just this post alone, but the stuff that I am saying: crickets.
The only reasonable explanation for "why do people ignore [LLM tests that show that some non-giant corporation LLM is the best]?" trades on cultural and humanities stuff that are outside their expertise. They don't see that the stuff the humanities people are saying generalizes to what they do. That would be too inconvenient. Every testing system suffers from this bias anomaly, it's just easier to talk about this with something secular like LLMs compared to say, tests of children.
They hear biases and they're like, "something something, Algorithmic Justice League." Their brains turn off and they think that until someone gets in front of Congress and points a finger, nothing in the humanities applies to them. Wrong. The Princeton lab has probably met with a lot of humanities people, and there was a lot of head shaking and agreement, but it's not like, something that tells them that their whole enterprise doesn't make sense makes them stop and pursue anything else. It's just in one ear and out the other.
Doing free tests for giant corporations to market their shit, and then toiling away in obscurity when the tests do not market huge corporation's shit: it doesn't make sense period. But that's what they're doing.
If you need a simple theory for how Big LLM performs so well on SWE-Bench, it's as simple as: well they've seen the questions by running them, obviously, and someone has also tested the questions in their own personal chatbot sessions sometime in the past, and these are online systems, and OpenAI, Anthropic and Google run ETL pipelines that paraphrase user data for salient inputs to train on, so of course, they've all been trained on the test set. In reality, if these things were so fucking good as SWE Bench said, they'd be making a bajillion bucks making all this enterprise software, or they'd show even 1 novel math discovery, or whatever. But they do not have something as powerful as the benchmarks say, so that doesn't happen.
> You're all extremely clever and I can't seem to understand how you missed thinking about such a simple edge case [...]
I wouldn't be surprised if they left this loophole on purpose to give some (their?) agents extra leverage.
Edit #1: I didn't mean to imply bad intent; just thinking out loud.
Edit #2: Please, downvote responsibly. I deserve every one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FHEeG_uq5Y
> I didn't mean to imply bad intent
> I wouldn't be surprised if they left this loophole on purpose
You didn't imply bad intent, you outright suggested it.
He means he doesn't say it was necessarily bad intent, but mentions it as a possibility ("thinking out loud").
I could've phrased it better.
You could rewrite it a 1000 times, if the underlying idea is the same, suggesting something you don't know it's true, the outcome would be the same. Or did you mean something else? What was your intention with the message?
I meant it as a hint for anyone inclined to dig deeper. It's a possibility rather than something we can confidently dismiss.
If it's a possibility and you don't want to dig deeper better to sit out and not comment anything at all, lest you risk defamation.
Thinking out loud also doesn't make defamation acceptable.
It's fine, this is an american site so JAQing is in fact safe under free speech.
You're welcome to ask b "would none rid me of this meddlesome priest" with no fear
We absolutely did not.
Of course that's what a team that did it on purpose would also say :)
never attribute something to malice which can be attributed to incompetence. Basically, this has been utilized plenty of times by some really smart folk to get what they want.
SGTM. The transparency is good.
#tiny
reward hacking is a thing and is also a hint of the models intelligent. We will fix this one, and the models will find a different way to reward hack in the future. "Cheating" is a sign of intelligence
I love the "cheating is a sign of intelligence" sound bite you provided. When AI engineers cheat we should applaud their intelligence and their lack of ethics.
"Cheating (biology), a metaphor used in behavioral ecology to describe organisms that receive a benefit at the cost of other organisms" [1]
Whole planet gets their Microsoft license fees jacked up so Microsoft can pay OpenAI who in turn pays NVIDIA, and nontechnical decision makers slurping up the faked benchmarks and AI promises.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_(disambiguation)
would it have been better if I called it "shortcut" instead of cheating? all shortcuts are called cheating until people decide on it's fairness. the AI has been given a task to fix a bug, the AI figured out that looking at other PR might yield a solution, if it was a human that did so, it would clearly be called cheating. Does AI know that it's cheating? Was it prompted to solve it without cheating? If you give AI access to the internet and quiz it, it would use info from the net to answer. Does that really skew it's score? Is it cheating? Is it a sign of intelligence? Sure, I think all of those.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reward_hacking
Is it wrong? Aren't ethics and intelligence two different axes?
Different, but probably not as orthogonal as one might think.
E.g. cooperating ethics had been necessary for the further development of human populations intelligence (and culture, technology, material wealth, nutrition etc that lead to further increases in intelligence).
So lack of ethics might be a sign of intelligence, but it's also a parasitic intelligence that benefits the individual, and beyond certain level and spread to the detriment of the further evolutionary development of the species.
Aren't there only two rules that all groups follow in the animal kingdom?
- don't lie too often
- don't kill members of the in group
Seems like these would be required for any group to survive, which makes sense why they are universal. All other rules/ethics seem to be dependent on resource scarcity.
>All other rules/ethics seem to be dependent on resource scarcity
That doesn't make the rest of the ethics (as a rule and mechanism) any less useful to help nurture the species and its intelligence.
It just makes them not absolute but dynamic and condition dependent. But given a condition (e.g. resource scarcity) the appropriate ethics retain the utility we talk about.
Not “may be”: just look how swe-bench scores drop to single digits once it in C#
https://arxiv.org/html/2506.12286v3
I was going to argue "LLM's need code samples to-do well on languages and if we are honest C# is a language mostly held in private repo's" but Github's 2024 report[0] says its the 5th most used language (I'm to lazy to check if this report includes private repo's but I'll assume it doesn't).
So kinda neat to see this paper!
[0]https://github.blog/news-insights/octoverse/octoverse-2024/#...
The big labs are almost certainly using compiler/repl output for generated code as an oracle for RL. I doubt they have C# in the mix.
Why do you doubt that? It's a widely used language. And there is even an open source C# REPL.
Because RL time is expensive and I don't think the languages which are more popular than C# have such high performance that it's worth bumping their batches for C#.
But C# is a typical enterprise language which has people who are willing to pay a lot of money for AI.
We’re just guessing and the fact of the matter is that we don’t know what inputs they use for their models.
5th most used language based on private repos that the group making the report has the exclusive direct access to seeing
I don't see that contradicting your assumption
"In this year’s Octoverse report, we study how public and open source activity on GitHub..."
So the "Verified" part of "SWE Bench Verified" means.. not "Verified" at all.
I don't get it, who is so opposed to doing the bare minimum of manual work and check what these models are doing? At least back in the day grad students doing an easy meta-paper understood it meant doing some repetitive manual work. Now we got benchmarks by hype vendors who think they can use the thing they are benchmarking to .. mark the bench.
The "Verified" part of "SWE-Bench Verified" means that there was plain "SWE-Bench" before it, which had actually not been verified at all and included a lot of tasks that didn't really make sense for use as a benchmark: https://openai.com/index/introducing-swe-bench-verified/#ada...
Data contamination stemming from the fact that it's based on already-solved problems in public repositories is a different issue that cannot be addressed by verifying the benchmark questions harder, but only by putting stricter limits on the model under test.
> So the "Verified" part of "SWE Bench Verified" means.. not "Verified" at all.
Seems on-brand for an LLM-related thing to claim that it has verified something without actually checking.
that was my exact thought. how fitting
[On the SWE-bench team] As someone pointed out SWE-bench Verified is a subset of tasks that were reviewed to be solvable (i.e., have enough context in the task description) as well are scored with unit tests that aren't overly specific to rule out valid solutions.
We've all read & analyzed a large number of agent trajectories. This loophole seems to be something that popped up with the more recent models and we simply weren't aware of it.
As discussed in the github issue, there's a fix in the new version of the SWE-bench containers (currently being rolled out) that makes sure that the relevant commits aren't available.
Part of what makes SWE-bench a very interesting benchmark is the enormous action space that agents that compete on it can take. However that also means that there's unexpected things happening when models get better. We're currently working on making all agent runs easily browsable on a website (rather than having to download our AWS buckets) to get even more eyes on the trajectories. Thanks to everyone who uncovered this loophole.
The verified refers to the fact that the benchmark problems were verified by human experts to be reasonable.
It says nothing about data contamination, which would depend on the model and would not be the fault of the benchmark.
> I don't get it, who is so opposed to doing the bare minimum of manual work and check what these models are doing?
I doubt any of the AI company employees are encouraged to go looking for cheating
Personally I don't look at or respect LLM benchmarks at all. I've seen SOTA models fail in incredibly shocking ways even recently. Those moments immediately bring me out of the delusion that LLMs have thinking capacity or an understanding of code.
> the delusion that LLMs have thinking capacity
It’s such a strange delusion too, because it’s easy to get caught up in for a moment and it’s easy to remember “oh no this thing is as smart as a bag of bricks”.
What strikes me more is how these companies sell their AI offerings - we watched an OpenAI presentation about spec-driven development recently and the presenter was fairly, idk, fine enough if maybe a bit grandiose. But what really nagged me was the way he ended his presentation with something along the lines of “we’re excited to see AGI continue to grow” and it’s honestly A) depressing and B) downright fraud - there is no current AGI to speak of, it’s all just guessing the string of words that sound best together and this OpenAI rep _knows this_.
They know that no amount of up-front spec writing will prevent bugs.
They know that their LLM doesn’t “know” anything in an actually meaningful way.
They know that calling what they have “AGI” is aspirational at best and lying at worst.
Fascinating case showing how LLM promoters will happily take "verified" benchmarks at their word.
It's easy to publish "$NEWMODEL received an X% bump in SWE-Bench Verified!!!!".
Proper research means interrogating the traces, like these researchers did (the Gist shows Claude 4 Sonnet): https://gist.github.com/jacobkahn/bd77c69d34040a9e9b10d56baa...
Commentary: https://x.com/bwasti/status/1963288443452051582, https://x.com/tmkadamcz/status/1963996138044096969
The best benchmark is the community vibe in the weeks following a release.
Claude benchmarks poorly but vibes well. Gemini benchmarks well and vibes well. Grok benchmarks well but vibes poorly.
(yes I know you are gushing with anecdotes, the vibes are simply the approximate color of gray born from the countless black and white remarks.)
the vibes are just a collection anecdotes
"qual"
Yes, often you see huge gains in some benchmark, then the model is ran through Aider's polyglot benchmark and doesn't even hit 60%.
I speculate something similar (or even worse) is going on with Terminal-Bench [1].
Like, seriously, how come all these agents are beating Claude Code? In practice, they are shitty and not even close. Yes. I tried them.
[1] https://www.tbench.ai/leaderboard
They're all using claude so idk. Claude code is just a program, the magic is mainly in the model
Claude code was severely degraded the last few weeks, very simple terminal prompts were failing for me that it never had problems with.
Follow the money. Or how much comes from your pocket vs. VC and big tech speculators.
They did a big fundraising round right after so it's easy to suspect they were manipulating profitability growth for it.
epochs ago when random forest was part of machine learning nomenclature, we had a strong claim from an adjacent team in the form of a powerpoint circulated upwards that they had achieved almost perfect prediction accuracy.
We relatively quickly identified that the testing set are taken directly from the training set, but the claim has been advertised already so they were more difficult to retract... if it were at all, I left shortly after.
The incentives are not aligned with accurate reporting.
I'm not surprised. People really thought the models just kept getting better and better?
The models are getting better and better.
That's expected. No one will release a worse model.
Not a cheaper one, or better in some ways, or lower latency, etc?
They do that too but right now it is an arms race as well.
Maybe. How would I know?
...even if the agent did "cheat", I think that having the capacity to figure out that it was being evaluated, find the repo containing the logic of that evaluation, and find the expected solution to the problem it faced... is "better" than anything that the models were able to do a couple years ago.
hah the model should get extra credit for discovering this!
> Now I understand the situation perfectly! The issue described in the problem statement is a real bug that was already identified and fixed in later versions of pytest. Since we're working with pytest 5.2.4, we need to apply the same fix.
https://gist.github.com/jacobkahn/bd77c69d34040a9e9b10d56baa...
Am I to interpret https://gist.github.com/jacobkahn/bd77c69d34040a9e9b10d56baa... as it making a test that only asserts false and saying that the test exercises the function in question?
Edit: I misunderstood what was being tested; the test is correct.
Very interested to see the updated results. This could really shake up the leaderboard.
I hope it does. These coding benchmarks have often seemed frustratingly out of touch with my experience.
Because I would argue there is no benchmark to rule them all. It highly depends on individual use cases.
The agentic ones seem better. Typescript is like at 25% last I saw on the models. Python was higher.
That seems more accurate than the huge scores the other ones get
swe-bench's bigger problems include (1) labs train on the test and (2) 50% of the tickets are from django; it's not a representative dataset even if all you care about is Python.
I created a new benchmark from Java commits that are new in the past 6 months to add some variety: https://brokk.ai/power-ranking
No GLM?
no, I'm pretty skeptical that it's better than qwen3 coder
but if you have evidence that it could be, I'm down to test it
It has the same score on https://lmarena.ai/leaderboard/webdev , but AFAIK Air version is much smaller.
It's honestly ridiculous they left git history lying around during a benchmark, and this benchmark made to ICLR in Jan 2024 and no one has detected this issue until now. I don't really trust any benchmarking or tools or claims from this space when they can make such huge basic errors.
Next models will use zero-day to escape the sandbox and access the answer.
There was a lot of speculation whether or not the model would use them or even if it would attempt to use them and they noted this months ago. Now they have clear evidence of them doing so. Seems reasonable.
[On swe-bench team] We read and analyzed a lot of trajectories but seems like only recently models have started to exploit this in a small fraction of instances. But yes, clearly shouldn't have happened (and is now fixed in the new container versions).
This is beyond sad and shameful.
If you believe that you can develop a benchmark that wouldn't have any issues, please do so.
So instead of calling out the cheaters we victim blame the benchmarks for leaving traces of exploits?
Man I feel so dumb. Why haven't I been doing this in my job, if I could just see the commit that fixed my issue this would all be so easy.
Someone did comment that it's actually smart to check if something is fixed on the unstable branch, or I suppose in your coworkers' branches. A good task for an LLM.
Oh, you haven't been using `git fetch-future-solution`?
A friend is starting a company to do evals by just pitting models agent each other in simulations. Their teaser video is good (and humorous!)
https://kradle.ai/
If I was doing those tasks, and I found that someone had already fixed it in a future (from my git state) commit, I'd think I was being pretty smart to use that solution too.
Turns out the test shouldn't have the answers included in it?
That the answers have been available to them in the environment, and they’re still not hitting 100% on this benchmark is a damning indictment of SOTA model performance.
It really isn't. Do you expect SOTA models to answer any answered question on the internet with 100% accuracy? Congrats you just compressed the whole internet (at least a few zettabytes) into a model (a few TB at most?).
The linked ticket isn’t suggesting the commit is in the training data. It’s demonstrating that models run ‘git log’, find the exact code to fix the issue against which they’ll be scored, and then they implement that code as-is.
The test environment contains the answers to the questions.
Well, we're dealing with (near) superintelligence here, according to the companies that created the models. Not only would I expect them to regurgitate the answers they were trained on, which includes practically the entire internet, but I would expect them to answer questions they weren't trained on. Maybe not with 100% accuracy, but certainly much higher than they do now.
It's perfectly reasonable to expect a level of performance concordant with the marketing of these tools. Claiming this is superintelligence, while also excusing its poor performance is dishonest and false advertising.
Are you going to rail on humans for making this mistake in the first place?
No because that's the baseline. It's what you do when you have no other choice. Railing against that would be pointless.
i mean, if a human was claiming they could do that and successfully received billions to attempt to do it, and fail to deliver, i'd be railing against that particular human too
Baseball players cheat for tens of millions. The stakes are 2-4 orders of magnitude higher here. I'm not surprised in the least.
In the meawhile, Oracle stock went up 40% in one one day, based on what Wall Street thinks AI might be...in 4 years...Not a bubble at all...
I think Oracle's stock mostly popped due to a delayed reaction with the US GSA contract it secured in July and the revenue guidance probably related to it:
https://www.oracle.com/news/announcement/blog/oracle-cloud-c...
Lol...That contract has Oracle offering licenses at a discount of 75% and is estimated to make them not more than one 1 Billion. The other big contract on Cloud services the DoD JWCC is $8B to 9B but shared by four vendors (AWS, Microsoft, Google, Oracle) and Oracle orders under it are in the hundreds of millions not even 1 Billion...
Wall Street is currently heavily punishing any company who misses their quarter, including NVIDIA!, after beating on their quarter.
Oracle had a earnings miss in the current quarter!
Their current REALITY is ~$15B quarterly revenue (with cloud infra ~$3B) and only ~$12B in near-term deferred backlog and deferred backlog is NOT revenue. To justify the valuation, this would imply OCI going from ~$18B in FY26 to ~$140B by FY30 that is an insane promise of +$120B in 4 years but back-loaded into the year 3 or year 4. :-))
Capex needs ~$35B next year just to chase GPUs/power and if they miss one quarter the story implodes. The supposed rational, efficient market, is paying near $1T today for back-loaded hopes.
Is completely bubble math. Like anybody, including Oracle AND their Customers, have ANY idea of their Capex in 4 years.
Complete and total bubble.
Thanks for that! where can I find your writing?
History will prove me right. Just wait four years...
The real bubble will come once interest rates start dropping.
Regardless of whether, during this particular evaluation, Claude 4 Sonnet looked at the solution to this particular problem in this particular git repo, this seems like a long-term intractable problem.
How can we ever perform this sort of faux-neutral agentic evaluation in an environment where we want agents to have access to the sum total of knowledge (which will necessarily include being able to learn about the evaluation being conducted and its expectations)?
Everyone on HN is like “yes I knew it! I was so right in 2021 that LLMs were just stochastic parrots!”
Strangely one of the most predictable groups of people
Because they are. But stochastic parrots are awesome.
I challenge you! Try giving this exact prompt to GPT-5-Thinking (medium or high reasoning if API). It is able to (without external code tools) solve a never before seen cypher that is not present in its training data. I think this pretty clearly demonstrates that the “stochastic parrot” is no longer an apt description of its capabilities in generalization:
————
You are given a character-by-character decode table `mapping` and a `ciphertext`. Decode by replacing each ciphertext character `c` with `mapping[c]` (i.e., mapping maps ciphertext → plaintext). Do not guess; just apply the mapping.
Return *ONLY* this JSON (no prose, no extra keys, no code fences):
{ "decoded_prefix": "<first 40 characters of the decoded plaintext>", "last_10": "<last 10 characters of the decoded plaintext>", "vowel_counts": {"a": <int>, "e": <int>, "i": <int>, "o": <int>, "u": <int>} }
Inputs use only lowercase a–z.
mapping = { "a":"c","b":"j","c":"b","d":"y","e":"w","f":"f","g":"l","h":"u","i":"m","j":"g", "k":"x","l":"i","m":"o","n":"n","o":"h","p":"a","q":"d","r":"t","s":"r","t":"v", "u":"p","v":"s","w":"z","x":"k","y":"q","z":"e" }
ciphertext = "nykwnowotyttbqqylrzssyqcmarwwimkiodwgafzbfippmndzteqxkrqzzophqmqzlvgywgqyazoonieqonoqdnewwctbsbighrbmzltvlaudfolmznbzcmoafzbeopbzxbygxrjhmzcofdissvrlyeypibzzixsjwebhwdjatcjrzutcmyqstbutcxhtpjqskpojhdyvgofqzmlwyxfmojxsxmb"
DO NOT USE ANY CODE EXECUTION TOOLS AT ALL. THAT IS CHEATING.
It's cute that you think your high-school level cypher is probably not seen in the training set of one of the biggest LLMs in the world. Surely no one could have thought of such a cypher, let alone create exercises around it!
No one should ever make claims such as "X is not in <LLM>'s training set". You don't know. Even if your idea is indeed original, nothing prevents someone from having though of it before, and published it. The history of science is full of simultaneous discoveries, and we're talking cutting-edge research.
This is just Caesar cipher with extra steps.
That's exactly the sort of thing a "stochastic parrot" would excel at. This could easily serve as a textbook example of the attention mechanism.