Analog Devices quizzes - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2024, 06:15:16 pm
content: I've been trying out the new o1-pro model by feeding it some of thebrainteasers from ADI's marketing department. These have the advantage of being made up on the spot or drawn from material that either wouldn't appear verbatim in the training corpus or wouldn't be well-connected to the questions being asked.Previous models haven't done very well, but o1-pro is showing some improvement. It gotthe latest questionrightthe first time, but that was an easy one. I didn't think it would handlethe previous questionas well as it did:You have to log in to see the answers provided by readers but they largely echoed the reasoning above. Most people got the sign issue right off the bat, but overlooked the input polarity.Technically the polarity objection is questionable because there's no reason why Vref has to be positive, but... anyway, some reasonably impressive work from HAL on this one, hand-waving about a "non-inverting integrator" aside:

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2024, 11:05:46 pm
content: Another quiz:Answers highlighted in green (noting that cut/paste mangles the actual math expressions badly):Quote4/4 correct, despite the awkward diagram and question phrasing.They are charging $200/month for access to this model, and it may end up being worth it. It's demonstrating valid reasoning here, not something obtainable from a "stochastic parrot", a Markov model, a lucky guess, or (for that matter) Google Gemini Pro 1.5, which went 0/4.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 17, 2024, 05:49:55 pm
content: Certainly very impressive, and somewhat scary. $200 a month is a lot cheaper than my salary! Can it synthesise outputs too, give it a novel problem (one clearly not present in its training data) and get a reasonable output?

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 17, 2024, 05:59:43 pm
content: It's certainly reached the point of being useful, and I fully intend to become an engineer who takes advantage of andusestools like this, rather than one who is replaced by them. We certainly shouldn't sit idly by and fail to keep up to date on what these AI tools can and can't do - especially when they can already do so much.A while ago I challenged ChatGPT to tell me the differences between two similar looking, competing ADCs from different manufacturers. It failed miserably, but I do hold out hope that this is an area in which these models will improve.As it happens I've spent a happy day exchanging C code fragments with ChatGPT and getting it to check for things like arithmetic overflows, division by zero and the like. It's been helpful, and I must confess to being quite chuffed at being told at one point:Quote

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 17, 2024, 08:15:54 pm
content: Yep, if fishing for compliments from a robot doesn't feel like the future, I don't know what does.Quote from: tom66 on December 17, 2024, 05:49:55 pmThis qualifies as a novel problem, I think, given that the idea was to act as a brainteaser, and given that it can't possibly be in the training corpus. If you read the solution threads, they are full of responses from people who are (by appearances anyway) working EEs or at least EE students. Not all of them get the answer right, and some of them get pretty argumentative.One excellent benchmark is thegeometry quiz from last May.Most respondents got it wrong, and some got downright pissy about it. Previous OpenAI models didn't come close to getting it, and o1-pro didn't get it either, but it used the same flawed reasoning as some of the humans to get the same wrong answers. If I argue with it enough, I can convince it of the correct answer. I wouldn't be surprised if the next major release has no trouble with it.IMHO even the $200/month model is still a work in progress, and we are still a long way from being able to trust these models implicitly. But you can treat it like an intern or junior employee who isverygood at design planning, sanity checks and general brainstorming.I used to double-check ChatGPT results against Google Gemini, but there's no point doing that with o1-pro. It has no peers right now.

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 17, 2024, 09:23:45 pm
content: Quote from: AndyC_772 on December 17, 2024, 05:59:43 pmExactly right!My son is doing exactly the same thing.One can either ride-high the wave or be swept by it.

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2025, 07:43:22 pm
content: o1-pro made (somewhat) short work of this one:DeepSeek R1, running the1.58-bit Unsloth dynamic quant modelon my local machine, took almost 30 minutes. But it also got it right:Extremely impressed with the 1.58-bit model's performance, even though Unsloth themselvesonly rate it as 'fair'.It seems to be about as good as OpenAI's frontier model was 12-18 months ago. I can see why it has ruffled some feathers.

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2025, 06:53:19 pm
content: Strong work from the new Gemini 2.5 Pro (experimental) release:https://g.co/gemini/share/78e2b3945b29Claude 3.7 says the gain is -2, o1-pro shat the bed ("An error occurred"), o3-mini-high says the gain is -1.As of right now, Gemini 2.5 is well out in front of ChatGPT, not to mention ~10x cheaper and faster.