The ARC Prize organization designs benchmarks which are specifically crafted to demonstrate tasks that humans complete easily, but are difficult for AIs like LLMs, “Reasoning” models, and Agentic frameworks. ARC-AGI-3 is the first fully interactive benchmark in the ARC-AGI series. ARC-AGI-3 represents hundreds of original turn-based environments, each handcrafted by a team of human game designers. There are no instructions, no rules, and no stated goals. To succeed, an AI agent must explore each environment on its own, figure out how it works, discover what winning looks like, and carry what it learns forward across increasingly difficult levels. Previous ARC-AGI benchmarks predicted and tracked major AI breakthroughs, from reasoning models to coding agents. ARC-AGI-3 points to what’s next: the gap between AI that can follow instructions and AI that can genuinely explore, learn, and adapt in unfamiliar situations. You can try the tasks yourself here: arcprize.org/arc-agi/3 Here is the current leaderboard for ARC-AGI 3, using state of the art models OpenAI GPT-5.4 High - 0.3% success rate at $5.2K Google Gemini 3.1 Pro - 0.2% success rate at $2.2K Anthropic Opus 4.6 Max - 0.2% success rate at $8.9K xAI Grok 4.20 Reasoning - 0.0% success rate $3.8K. (Logarithmic cost on the horizontal axis. Note that the vertical scale goes from 0% to 3% in this graph. If human scores were included, they would be at 100%, at the cost of approximately $250.) arcprize.org/leaderboard Technical report: arcprize.org/…/ARC_AGI_3_Technical_Report.pdf In order for an environment to be included in ARC-AGI-3, it needs to pass the minimum “easy for humans” threshold. Each environment was attempted by 10 people. Only environments that could be fully solved by at least two human participants (independently) were considered for inclusion in the public, semi-private and fully-private sets. Many environments were solved by six or more people. As a reminder, an environment is considered solved only if the test taker was able to complete all levels, upon seeing the environment for the very first time. As such, all ARC-AGI-3 environments are verified to be 100% solvable by humans with no prior task-specific training

Biased study. Take any average person off the streets and shove this thing in their face. That 100% notion will go down fast.

They didn't say "100% of humans can solve this benchmark", they said "humans can solve 100% of this benchmark".

"Humans score 100%. Frontier AI scores 0.26%." The title deals in absolutes.

Those are the high scores.

🤔 So this is a visual comparison between peak performance of some humans and peak performance of current LLMs in a controlled environment?

Is this a gotcha? Not sure where you got the "visual" from, but yes it is best human performance vs best LLM performance

I don't know why you assume there has to be a gotcha, maybe it's the competitive background... Anyway, it's visual because you look at it to see it. And it's not the best human performance vs best LLM performance, it's best controlled performance because the testing is limited to a set of parameters.