Hacker News Reader

This post is literally about a language the author invented to be hard for LLMs to parse and isn't in their training set and yet Opus 5 scored 68.8% on it.

You may agree with the author (that it doesn't mean it understands the language) but it's pretty hard to argue that this is copied form the training set.

View on HN

It might not be copied from its training set (yet), but it is copied from its context window.

The code it produces is a clear copy of the spec or the existing code that is fed to it as part of the task. It is just following the spec instructions, and some models follow it so closely that they get caught out by the lies/adversarial traps in the spec. Opus 5 is better at seeing through the lies, but it still very much copies from its context window.

I mean this is a pretty unusual standard to hold something to. How is it supposed to operate if you can't tell it how to operate?

Humans look at the docs too! Is there any difference?

Yes, humans can learn which parts of the spec are true and which aren’t. LLMs can too, but only through their context window (or long term through retraining)

You think you don't have a context window? Try coming back to your own uncommented code after half a year.

In-context learning is more than "copying" though. It's generalization.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com