<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&amp;A Benchmark · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2311.12022/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2311.12022/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&amp;A Benchmark — mentioned by ricardobeat</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46187526</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2311.12022:46187526</guid><pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2025 02:09:59 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;One of the reported hallucinations in this work [1], starting with David Rein, says the other authors are entirely made up. They are indeed absent from the original cited paper [2], but a Google search shows some of the same names featured in citations from other papers [3] [4]. Most of the names in these wrong attributions are actual people though, not hallucinations. What is going on? Is this a case of AI-powered citation management creating some weird feedback loop? [1] https://app.gptzero.me/documents/54c8aa45-c97d-48fc-b9d0-d49... [2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.12022 [3]…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2311.12022/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.AI</category></item><item><title>GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&amp;A Benchmark — mentioned by vonneumannstan</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43506007</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2311.12022:43506007</guid><pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:40:05 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;I’m not sure how you can have played with LLMs so much and missed this. I hope you don’t trust what they say about recipes or how to handle legal problems or how to clean things or how to treat disease or any fact-checking whatsoever. This is like a GPT3.5 level criticism. o1-pro is probably better at pure fact retrieval than most PhDs in any given field. I challenge you to try it. In fact take the GPQA test yourself and see how you do then give the same questions to o1. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.12022&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2311.12022/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.AI</category></item><item><title>GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&amp;A Benchmark — mentioned by apsec112</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40139838</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2311.12022:40139838</guid><pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2024 02:34:52 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Those are really sweeping conclusions, considering the experiment is just a single iteration of a single prompt! FWIW, Claude Opus got this for me on the first try: &amp;quot;In the Gilligan&amp;#x27;s Island episode &amp;quot;Seer Gilligan&amp;quot; (season 3, episode 8), Gilligan gains the ability to read minds after being hit on the head with a coconut. At first, the castaways are excited about Gilligan&amp;#x27;s new power and try to use it to their advantage. However, his mind-reading abilities soon cause chaos and misunderstandings among the group. In the end, Gilligan gets hit on the head again and loses his mind-reading powers…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2311.12022/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.AI</category></item><item><title>GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&amp;A Benchmark — mentioned by nopinsight</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39593092</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2311.12022:39593092</guid><pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2024 17:26:47 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;“Claude 3 gets ~60% accuracy on GPQA. It&amp;#x27;s hard for me to understate how hard these questions are—literal PhDs (in different domains from the questions) [spending over 30 minutes] with access to the internet get 34%. PhDs in the same domain (also with internet access!) get 65% - 75% accuracy.” — David Rein, first author of the GPQA Benchmark. I added text in […] based on the benchmark paper’s abstract. https://twitter.com/idavidrein/status/1764675668175094169 GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&amp;amp;A Benchmark https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.12022&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2311.12022/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.AI</category></item></channel></rss>
