I wonder if people are getting it to help with Krypyos the final part? Great documentary on this code… https://youtu.be/jVpsLMCIB0Y

Quite intuitive. Let's heart those "just a next token predictor" cries now.

It's hard to believe that a model can nowadays solve mathematical challenges and break ciphers, yet it fails to do trivial tasks involving critical thinking, having taste, and not just running around in circles.

> Caveats, stated plainly:

Remember when they said it didn't sound like Claude anymore

Cool. Decode this in your LLM:

--. --- / ..-. ..- -.-. -.- / -.-- --- ..- .-. ... . .-.. ..-.

I wonder if the voynich manuscript is next.

Its all brute force. This was how the pyramids were built too. Verifiable goal and a lot of energy expended aiming toward it. It wasn't aliens then and its not super intelligence now.

All of these breakthroughs are in verifiable brute force domains, and some of them are probably wrong because of a typo in a lean specification or just a base level axiom being incomplete.

I think the better the way to think about LLMs is like they are new substances, like when we first discovered clay or bronze, but confined to the digital realm. Previously we were chipping away at stones trying to make to things as close to useful as possible, then we found a step change. LLMs are like clay but they have their limitations. Wake me up when they are proposing new, { conjecture: interesting|useful|new } and not as a side effect of trying to get to a goal.

they should throw this at the zodiac cipher

When goes Collatz conjecture?

Still can't align my navbar buttons correctly