My point is that the contest really should be "can solve ARC problems without having anything about ARC problems in its pre-training data or hard-coded in the design of the program." Otherwise these claims from ARC-AGI are simply false:

  Solving ARC-AGI represents a material stepping stone toward AGI. At minimum, solving ARC-AGI would result in a new programming paradigm. It would allow anyone, even those without programming knowledge, to create programs simply by providing a few input-output examples of what they want.

  This would dramatically expand who is able to leverage software and automation. Programs could automatically refine themselves when exposed to new data, similar to how humans learn.

  If found, a solution to ARC-AGI would be more impactful than the discovery of the Transformer. The solution would open up a new branch of technology.

This program does not represent a "new paradigm" because it requires a bunch of human programming work specifically tailored to the problem, and it cannot be generalized. If software like this wins the contest that really shows the contest has nothing whatsoever to do with AGI.

> Otherwise these claims from ARC-AGI are simply false:

Currently, any claim about AGI other than "we're probably not anywhere close to strong AGI" is simply false.

Of course a lot depends on one's definition of AGI. From another perspective, one could argue that ChatGPT 4 and similar models are already AGI.