daveguy

Exactly this. Using an LLM to understand the original LLM slop is just another chance to get it wrong 20% of the time. These things just aren't reliable.

yolo'ing a code complexity generator doesn't make it suddenly stop being a code complexity generator.

Not only that, when you have a human designed and implemented system you know it's at least coherent enough that someone understood it at some point well enough to take responsibility for it. No such assurance with the llms.

Wonder if this round of suckers is going to have to wait 9 years for the next demo too.

It's referred to as The Great Crack.

There's a brief description of it in the Park Expansion subsection of the Description section of this wiki article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawai%CA%BBi_Volcanoes_Nationa...

If you are able to answer yes to both of my previous questions, then the answer to your questions will be obvious.

Seems to me the goal is to create a convoluted spaghetti mess in every code base so that humans no longer have a chance to understand how it works and thereby force all software development to go through LLM obfuscator-deobfuscator cycles.

Do you read the code? And is it in a domain you understood well before depending on llms?

This stuff is still 90% garbage hype. See also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnV_cWeoo5Q&list=LL&index=3

Or we could just recognize these llms crank out poorly architected bug infested slop. The coding work of these llms is just as garbage as all the other bland, flat, wtf writing they crank out with prose. Even worse because there's no logical mind behind the garbage. With bad human written code there was at least one human there thinking about it.

I would change that to computers should not be able to make decisions. They suck at it.

Very literally works are encapsulated into these models. So literally and encompassing that artists individual signatures are included.

Interestingly Simon Willison left off the part about "I revisited the problem this summer, along with my partial solutions, when the previous round of stunning proofs came out. Several hours of work with Fable simply convinced me it wasn't yet solvable and reinforced how hard of a problem it was." in his blog post about your comment: https://simonwillison.net/2026/Oct/7/jake-boggan/

Almost as if he didn't want to include the part about you putting your work efforts into the model with an open question as to it's proclivity for stealing mathematical research. I wonder why a pro-AI blogger would do that.

I, personally, am convinced that OpenAI and Anthropic, and probably most other LLM labs cannot be trusted not to launder the work of their users through their own systems. As they did with internet resources for their entire initial training set. There is no telling how many researchers did the same thing with the exact same problem only to have their leads laundered by these companies with a large budget and small morality.

Hahaha. It'll say what you bring up is absolutely right egardless of whether it's a better option. These LLMs use a training technique (RLHF) that placates the user and keeps them burning tokens. It's optimizing for human approval, not correctness.

That's not what was asked, GP was summarizing. Two options were given. With one option you wouldn't have your car with you when you arrive.

The only context that these LLMs have is whatever is in their context window. Not only that, the context is updated on each token emitted with the new token. It's a chaotic process, and a flaw inherent to the technology. It's not going to be fixed anytime soon.

"no specific user data ... over two months" being the key to the squirmy language.

Buckmaster had been working on the problem using openai as a tool for over a year.

OpenAI could neither confirm nor deny whether their most recent AI model that solved the millennium problem actually stole partial solutions via training data from the researchers who were close and using OpenAI gpt as a tool.

I think you don't appreciate the complexity of even the simplest multicellular organism and their training environment. Nothing to be ashamed of because no one understands that complelxity. The entire scientific and engineering domains only understand a fraction of it. If you want to talk about hubris, you should consider your own. To insist this sliver of computation is all that's needed for life to be conscious reeks of it.

Lack of explanation is not proof of existence.

I just mean the business case is much more likely to come from treating it like a tool than a proto-diety. Frontier of business, not frontier of impressive demo. Also, would argue they aren't frontier of research, in that a research frontier expands in more directions than just the latest hot thing in silicon valley. See also, LeCun, Chollet, etc. "These labs aren't the entirety of the frontier" would have been more accurate. And any of those frontier directions could be the next hot thing.

And manager types in software still haven't figured out that prototypes should not be the final product. In engineering it's common knowledge and only rarely do you take a proof of concept directly to production.

It is so nonsensical because it has such an obvious answer. The answer is so obvious, in fact, that one answer can be considered nonsense and the other common sense.

nullsanity got downvoted into oblivion, but they are correct. This is one of the many reasons why vibe coding produces worse software. The code that is generated and the best practice recommendations are completely separate. They both come from a distribution of "most common", and best practice is rarely common. Especially when a practice is first established, or in a specific niche.

That says a lot more about OpenAI and their monitoring capability than the fitness of the model. Hence people leaving because openai safety culture is broken.

I don't know. They appear to have "partnered" with their victims.

These LLMs are not the frontier. They are a tool. A tool that doesn't need to be able to write a sonnet to be useful.

I think it's more the noise, power consumption, local water consumption, and wholesale theft of creative works.

..."government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." -Lincoln, Gettysburg Adress

Unfortunately for AI, it still is. People still get to decide things at the city, town, village level.

Try Kagi. It's definitely worth it. And you can block sites in search very easily. None of the closed content farms show up in my search results.

They must have edited out the 1 in 5 times the agents crap the bed and mess up something important.

Our government is an embarrassment and a disgrace right now. Anyone who wasn't guzzling elon's twitter or fox's hatefest knew it was going to be this way. We need severe regulations on oligarchs and their propaganda toys. Used to be we had enforced anti-monopoly controls on media outlet conglomerates. The anti-government Goldwater/Reagan legacy worked for decades to destroy regulation. It needs to return with a vengeance.

IIRC there are already FLAs. FLAs too. ROTFL.