cristiancavalli

The second link I posted is specifically from the Australian market. How becoming no 6 in 2024-2025 for a model selling is not “improvement” is logic I don’t understand. They shot to no 6 after not being in the market — that’s obvious improvement. Maybe your definition of improvement is not one I share. For clarification I’m not arguing against your claim Tesla outsells in Australia. I take issue with the unfounded claim they are not improving sales since it obviously is not true. That’s my bad I didn’t make that clear from the jump. That second article is just for the first two months of 2025 so again obvious improvement since 10/24.

Without any substantive argument you seem to be the one attacking strawmen. Learn to source your argument and present evidence or don’t come to argue. I’m addressing your points and you haven’t added anything of substance beyond stating what seems to be misinformed and unsubstantiated opinion as fact. Moving on.

> Things haven’t improved for BYD since then.

You stated it wasn’t getting better for byd. From the article:

BYD revenues in Q3 (July to September) 2024 were 201 billion yuan ($AU42.85 billion) – a record high for the brand and a jump of 24 per cent over the same period in 2023.

More on byds ascent from earlier this year: https://www.afr.com/companies/transport/byd-s-hybrid-ute-jum...

Going from not having market to be the no. 6 best selling is by definition getting better.

So yes you are wrong and sales are improving for byd.

Wrong: https://www.drive.com.au/news/byd-revenue-tops-tesla-for-the...

It’s very obviously improving for BYD.

One might say, if this were a test being done by a human in a history class, that the answer is 100% incorrect given the actual record of events and failure of statement to mention that actual record. You can argue the causes but that’s not the question.

Because Russia did undeniably open hostilities? They even admitted to this both times. The second admission being in the form of announcing a “special military operation” when the ceasefire was still active. We also have photographic evidence of them building forces on a border during a ceasefire and then invading. This is like responding to: “did Alexander the Great invade Egypt” by going on a diatribe about how much war there was in the ancient world and that the ptolemaic dynasty believed themselves the rightful rulers therefore who’s to say if they did invade or just take their rightful place. There is an objective record here: whether or not people want to try and hide it behind circuitous arguments is different. If we’re going down this road I can easily redefine any known historical event with hand-wavy nonsense that doesn’t actually have anything to do with the historical record of events just “vibes.”

First page of Google search results from 7 years ago: https://www.quora.com/You-have-2-cups-of-coffee-50-degrees-w...

People making up their own benchmarks for these things has confirmed one thing for me: The bias that people think they mostly have original thoughts is extremely strong. I find if I have a “good” idea someone has probably already thought of it as well and maybe even written about it. About 0.01% of the time do I have an idea that one may consider novel and even that’s probably my own bias and overstated. This example just confirms that these models don’t really seem to reason and have a really hard time doing the basic generalization they can with fewer examples.

What rumors? I looked and can’t find something to substantiate that #

That’s a bold statement. US is a young country. Empires that lasted longer by 5x have been consigned to the dust bin of history with nary but an oral tradition to remember them. If looking at americas military capability is any indication it is already in steep decline especially with regards to its seeming inability to not crash or destroy million/billon dollar hardware purely based on incompetence and short staffing. Its inability to prosecute an illegal war in the ME (occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan) is also a great example of the lack of exceptionalism exhibited by americas armed forces and their inept leadership.

The man engaged in massive human rights abuses…

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/06/el-salvador-p...

There are a litany of articles taking about the exact lying you say they are not doing:

https://www.businessinsider.com/doge-savings-estimate-websit...

https://www.axios.com/2025/02/19/doge-musk-audit-mistake-sav...

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/doge-wall-of-receipts-shows...

So yeah they are lying; whether intentionally or unintentionally. At this point I’m not sure what is worse.

I think USAID could certainly be classified as “soft power.” I think throwing it all out makes little sense in light of the provably good things it did.

I postulate a slow, multi-generational decline in critical thinking skills (maybe this is driven, at least partially, by the over abundance of unchallenging media/entertainment) coupled with grievance politics and the bucket-of-crabs mentality that sets in when people start to sense the “pie getting smaller” or at least having reached its peak size.

What’s beyond a man who would lie about being a gamer (for credz), be so lazy in his lie he is instantly caught, double-down on his lie despite the obviousness of his inability to even use basic mechanics of said games and then beef with Internet personalities while leaking their private convos? I would wager this man has absolutely no ethic and is purely concerned with his own short-sighted greed and vanity.

Truly incredible how so many people can attribute “whiz kids” to a group of people who can’t even do the most basic due-diligence.

> So I agree that Congress should make/repeal laws that reduce the size of the executive branch so that only necessary powers are entrusted to the executive branch.

This is essentially what the courts are doing through the interrogation of the limits of the offices power. If that’s what you are looking for it’s already WAI.

He also lost a ton of $ and you can claim that was on purpose but he also made many attempts to get out of the deal so that would indicate otherwise. Also the sale of the subprime debt by holders suggest that risk was increasing in their outlooks and they wanted it off their books.

This is a patently false retelling — check your sources.

Who is claiming that implications inevitability?Shutting down a valid line of discussion because of someone deciding to make a fallacious analogy seems like a proposition that would essentially stop all scientific discussion of intelligence more broadly. Also a great argument for limiting free speech/scientific discussion in general. Thoughts are not inherently dangerous unless acted upon in a dangerous way and supposing that some are so dangerous that we should simply not speak of them seems like an action that should be considered more thoroughly beyond “someone might do something rash”

Not sure why this got so acrid but I don’t really have any reason to interact with someone saying I have “no merit” You might want to look at how bent-out-of-shape you are getting about a rando on the internet disagreeing with you.

Why I would lie about plugging in your problem into an LLM or solve it is beyond me; you know I don’t lose anything by admitting you’re right? In fact I would stand to gain from learning something new. I think you should examine how you approach an argument because every time you’ve replied it’s made it look like you’re just more desperate for someone to agree and are trying to bully people into agreeing by making ad hominem attacks. Despite it all I think you have merit as a person — even if you can’t make a cogent argument and just chase your tail on this topic.

I’m going to stop engaging with you for now on, but just as a piece of perspective for you: both o3 and Gemini pointed out how your problem is a derivation when asked — perhaps you might be overestimating its novelty. Gemini even cited derivations out the gate.

> I keep repeating myself because you seem unable to accept information.

I responded to your post with my thoughts and my own reframing of the question to try and open the conversation; you entirely ignored this in your response. Maybe you think this info is new to me but it’s not and it doesn’t prove anything for many more reasons than just the ones I cited in my prior response.

> Not sure if you are trolling now.

Nope just saying that adding “seem” to your postulation and repeating your point doesn’t make it right.

> I've had more productive conversations will LLMs.

The ad-hominem attacks really just serve to underscore how you have nothing of substance to argue.

Yep and yep. Did it on two models and by myself — you know if you ask them to cite similar problems (and their sources) I’ll think you’ll quickly realize how derivative your question is in both question and solution. Given that you’re now accusing me of arguing in bad faith despite the fact I’ve listened to you repeat the same point with the only proof being “this question is a head scratcher for me; must be for everyone else therefore it proves that one must reason” makes me think you don’t actually want to discuss something; you think you can “prove” something and seem to be more interested in that. Given that I say go publish your paper about your impossible question and let the rest of the community review it if you feel like you need to prove something. So far the only thing you’ve proven to me is that you’re not interested in a good-faith discussion; just repeating your dogma and hoping someone concedes.

Also generalization is not always reasoning: I can make a generalization that is not reasoned; I can also make one that is poorly reasoned. Generalization is considered well-defined in regards to reasoning: https://www.comm.pitt.edu/reasoning

Your example still fails to actually demonstrate reasoning given its highly derivative nature, though.

Repeating a point without proffering evidence only makes it seems as if you don’t have anything to argue of substance.

Not at all — how many people were geniuses and their parents not? I can name several and I’m sure with a quick search you can too.

Is it actually reasoning though or just pattern matching? Seems like to compare one should also “know” which your above response indicates they do not.

I guess the real question is “does moving down a stochastic gradient of probabilities suffice as reasoning to you” and my awnser is no because you don’t need reason to find the nearest neighbor in this architecture. In this case the model is not actively comparing and inferring its simply associating without “knowing”

I’m curious what’s dangerous about it? How do your square the inability to play tic-tac toe or do value comparisons correctly with “we should compare this to a humans reasoning” If it can’t do things like basic value comparison correctly what business do we have saying it “reasons like a human?”

I’d settle for these things being able to do value comparison consistently well, play a game of tic tac toe more than once correctly or use a UI after an update and not fail horrendously to move the needle a little bit for me. People claiming these things selectively reason while also not being able to explain why seems a lot like magical thinking to me rather than entertaining the possibility you might be projecting onto something that is really damn-well engineered to make your anthropomorphize it.

How does this prove reasoning? The thread you point to has several question in it that remain unanswered that ask the same question? How is this not entirely derivative too — there’s a huge number of these kind of 3-box “games” (although I don’t see this as a game really) so something very similar to this is probably in the training data a lot. Writing code to factor a number is definitely very common. Variation of this are also very common interview questions for interns (at least when I was interviewing)

I did and I fail to see how you can make those guarantees given you given it as a n interview question? You’re able to the vet the training data of O3? I still don’t see how your answer could only be arrived at via reasoning and that it would take “leaps of creativity” to arrive at the correct answer? These all seem like value judgments not hard data or some proof that your question cannot be derived from the training data given you say it is a variation of. Seems like you have an interview question not “proof of reasoning” especially given the prior cited case of these models being able to generalize in some cases with enough data.

“And it is also unlikely you solved it” well I guess you overestimated your abilities on two counts today then.

> It’s a variation on a well known problem in the sense that I just added some unique rules to it.

> No training data exists.

No it definitely does but is a variation. You kinda just confirmed what we already knew. Given enough data about a thing these LLMs can generalize somewhat.

This looks neat but I don’t think it meets the standard for “reasoning only.” (Still not sure how you would prove that one) furthermore this looks to be fairly generalizable in pattern+form to other grid problems so i don’t think it also meets the bar for “not being in the training data.” We known these models can generalize somewhat based upon their training but not consistently and certainly not consistently well. Again I’m not making the claim that responding to a novel prompt is a sign of reasoning as other have pointed out a calculator can do that too.

Your quote: “This is a unique problem I came up with. It’s a variation on counting islands.” You then say: “ as I came up with it so no variation of it really exists anywhere else.”

So not sure what to take away from your text but I do think this is a variation of a well-known problem type so I would be pretty amazed if there was something very close to this in the training data. Given it’s an interview question and those are written about ad-nauseum I’m not surprised then that it was able to generalize to the provided case. The COT researchers did see the ability to generalize in some cases just not necessarily actually use the COT tokens to reason and/or failed on generalizing on variations which they thought it should have given its ability to generalize in others and the postulation that it was using reasoning and not just a larger corpus to pattern match with.