Virtually every aspect of your health can be traced back to your microbiome. But some tests are better than others. Some of the recipes look tasty. I admit it: I'm a sucker for metrics. Fitness trackers that keep tabs on my steps and sleep? A DEXA scan to give me too much information about my body composition?

Human achievement, whether in culture, science, or technology, is unparalleled in the known existence. This achievement is tied to the enormous communities of knowledge, made possible by language: leaving theological content aside, it is very much true that "in the beginning was the word", and that in Western societies, this became particularly identified with the written word. There lies the challenge regarding modern age chatbots: they can 'do' language apparently as well as ourselves and there is a natural question of whether they can be considered intelligent, in the same way as we are or otherwise. Are humans uniquely intelligent? We consider this question in terms of the psychological literature on intelligence, evidence for intelligence in non-human animals, the role of written language in science and technology, progress with artificial intelligence, the history of intelligence testing (for both humans and machines), and the role of embodiment in intelligence. We think that it is increasingly difficult to consider humans uniquely intelligent. There are current limitations in chatbots, e.g., concerning perceptual and social awareness, but much attention is currently devoted to overcoming such limitations.

We introduce CellARC, a synthetic benchmark for abstraction and reasoning built from multicolor 1D cellular automata (CA). Each episode has five support pairs and one query serialized in 256 tokens, enabling rapid iteration with small models while exposing a controllable task space with explicit knobs for alphabet size k, radius r, rule family, Langton's lambda, query coverage, and cell entropy. We release 95k training episodes plus two 1k test splits (interpolation/extrapolation) and evaluate symbolic, recurrent, convolutional, transformer, recursive, and LLM baselines. CellARC decouples generalization from anthropomorphic priors, supports unlimited difficulty-controlled sampling, and enables reproducible studies of how quickly models infer new rules under tight budgets. Our strongest small-model baseline (a 10M-parameter vanilla transformer) outperforms recent recursive models (TRM, HRM), reaching 58.0%/32.4% per-token accuracy on the interpolation/extrapolation splits, while a large closed model (GPT-5 High) attains 62.3%/48.1% on subsets of 100 test tasks. An ensemble that chooses per episode between the Transformer and the best symbolic baseline reaches 65.4%/35.5%, highlighting neuro-symbolic complementarity. Leaderboard: https://cellarc.mireklzicar.com

Recent progress has pushed AI frontiers from pattern recognition tasks toward problems that require step by step, System2 style reasoning, especially with large language models. Yet, unlike learning, where generalization and out of distribution (OoD) evaluation concepts are well formalized, there is no clear, consistent definition or metric for reasoning ability. We propose Complexity Out of Distribution (Complexity OoD) generalization as a framework and problem setting to define and measure reasoning. A model exhibits Complexity OoD generalization when it maintains performance on test instances whose minimal required solution complexity, either representational (richer solution structure) or computational (more reasoning steps/program length), exceeds that of all training examples. We formalize complexity via solution description Kolmogorov complexity and operational proxies (e.g., object/relation counts; reasoning step counts), clarifying how Complexity OoD differs from length and compositional OoD. This lens unifies learning and reasoning: many cases solvable with System1 like processing at low complexity become System2 like under complexity pressure, while System2 can be viewed as generalization over solution structures. We translate this perspective into practice with recommendations for operationalizing Complexity OoD across the stack: incorporating complexity into benchmark and evaluation metric design, rethinking supervision to target solution traces, seeking and designing inductive biases for Complexity OoD generalization, addressing learning to reason spillovers such as spurious shortcuts, semantic robustness, catastrophic forgetting, and step wise calibration. Because Complexity OoD cannot be solved by scaling data alone, progress toward robust reasoning will require architectures and training regimes that explicitly model and allocate computation with respect to complexity.

Over the last thirty years, considerable progress has been made with the development of systems that can drive cars, play games, predict protein folding and generate natural language. These systems are described as intelligent and there has been a great deal of talk about the rapid increase in artificial intelligence and its potential dangers. However, our theoretical understanding of intelligence and ability to measure it lag far behind our capacity for building systems that mimic intelligent human behaviour. There is no commonly agreed definition of the intelligence that AI systems are said to possess. No-one has developed a practical measure that would enable us to compare the intelligence of humans, animals and AIs on a single ratio scale. This paper sets out a new universal measure of intelligence that is based on the hypothesis that prediction is the most important component of intelligence. As an agent interacts with its normal environment, the accuracy of its predictions is summed up and the complexity of its predictions and perceived environment is accounted for using Kolmogorov complexity. Two experiments were carried out to evaluate the practical feasibility of the algorithm. These demonstrated that it could measure the intelligence of an agent embodied in a virtual maze and an agent that makes predictions about time-series data. This universal measure could be the starting point for a new comparative science of intelligence that ranks humans, animals and AIs on a single ratio scale.

Current and foreseeable GenAI models are not capable of achieving artificial general intelligence because they are burdened with anthropogenic debt. They depend heavily on human input to provide well-structured problems, architecture, and training data. They cast every problem as a language pattern learning problem and are thus not capable of the kind of autonomy needed to achieve artificial general intelligence. Current models succeed at their tasks because people solve most of the problems to which these models are directed, leaving only simple computations for the model to perform, such as gradient descent. Another barrier is the need to recognize that there are multiple kinds of problems, some of which cannot be solved by available computational methods (for example, "insight problems"). Current methods for evaluating models (benchmarks and tests) are not adequate to identify the generality of the solutions, because it is impossible to infer the means by which a problem was solved from the fact of its solution. A test could be passed, for example, by a test-specific or a test-general method. It is a logical fallacy (affirming the consequent) to infer a method of solution from the observation of success.

IQ testing has served as a foundational methodology for evaluating human cognitive capabilities, deliberately decoupling assessment from linguistic background, language proficiency, or domain-specific knowledge to isolate core competencies in abstraction and reasoning. Yet, artificial intelligence research currently lacks systematic benchmarks to quantify these critical cognitive dimensions in multimodal systems. To address this critical gap, we propose MM-IQ, a comprehensive evaluation framework comprising 2,710 meticulously curated test items spanning 8 distinct reasoning paradigms. Through systematic evaluation of leading open-source and proprietary multimodal models, our benchmark reveals striking limitations: even state-of-the-art architectures achieve only marginally superior performance to random chance (27.49% vs. 25% baseline accuracy). This substantial performance chasm highlights the inadequacy of current multimodal systems in approximating fundamental human reasoning capacities, underscoring the need for paradigm-shifting advancements to bridge this cognitive divide.

Weaknesses: My first concern is that this model seems far from minimalism. Generating correct answer for RPM is an interesting task. But one of the reasons it is interesting to the current AI community is that humans can somehow generate some results correctly without huge amount of training. Although this work demonstrates the possibility of generator that can show some reasoning capability, I highly speculate that this is a distillation from the subnetworks for context extraction, which is trained with strong supervision. There is still a long distance from this model and human brain. The latter one is believed to be designed by nature following minimalism.

I have read the reviews and the author response and I have also asked an expert AC to also provide a comment in lieu of a 4th reviewer (pasted below for reference). Taken all these together I will recommend acceptance, with a note. NOTE TO AUTHORS: This work is going to be the reference paper for using generation as opposed to discrimination. As such, it is really crucial to set the right path for evaluating model in a fair and rigorous way, so that research that follows on builds on a solid base. The presented evaluation has some issues (see points bellow).

OpenAI's o3 achieves a high score of 87.5 % on ARC-AGI, a benchmark proposed to measure intelligence. This raises the question whether systems based on Large Language Models (LLMs), particularly o3, demonstrate intelligence and progress towards artificial general intelligence (AGI). Building on the distinction between skills and intelligence made by Fran\c{c}ois Chollet, the creator of ARC-AGI, a new understanding of intelligence is introduced: an agent is the more intelligent, the more efficiently it can achieve the more diverse goals in the more diverse worlds with the less knowledge. An analysis of the ARC-AGI benchmark shows that its tasks represent a very specific type of problem that can be solved by massive trialling of combinations of predefined operations. This method is also applied by o3, achieving its high score through the extensive use of computing power. However, for most problems in the physical world and in the human domain, solutions cannot be tested in advance and predefined operations are not available. Consequently, massive trialling of predefined operations, as o3 does, cannot be a basis for AGI - instead, new approaches are required that can reliably solve a wide variety of problems without existing skills. To support this development, a new benchmark for intelligence is outlined that covers a much higher diversity of unknown tasks to be solved, thus enabling a comprehensive assessment of intelligence and of progress towards AGI.