What difference do I think there is between humans and an agent? They use different heuristics, clearly. Different heuristics are valuable on different search problems. It's really that simple.
To be clear, I'm not calling either superior. I use agents every day. But I have noticed that claude, a SOTA model, makes basic logic errors. Isn't that interesting? It has access to the complete compendium of human knowledge and can code all sorts of things in seconds that require my trawling through endless documentation. But sometimes it forgets that to do dirty tracking on a pure function's output, it needs to dirty-track the function's inputs.
It's interesting that you mention AlphaGo. I was also very fascinated with it. There was recent research that the same algorithm cannot learn Nim: https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/03/figuring-out-why-ais-get-.... Isn't that food for thought?
I am saying you are absolutely right that Opus 4.6 is both SOTA and also colossally terrible in even surprisingly mundane contexts. But that is just not relevant to the argument you are making which is that there is some fundamental limitation. There is of course always a fundamental limitation to everything, but what we're getting at is where that fundamental limitation is and we are not yet even beginning to see it. Combinatorics here is the wrong lens to look at this, because it's not doing a search over the full combinatoric space, as is the case with us. There are plenty of efficient search "heuristics" as you call them.
> They use different heuristics, clearly.
what is the evidence for this? I don't see that as true, take for instance: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-025-01072-0
> It's interesting that you mention AlphaGo. I was also very fascinated with it. There was recent research that the same algorithm cannot learn Nim: https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/03/figuring-out-why-ais-get-.... Isn't that food for thought?
It's a long known problem with RL in a particular regime and isn't relevant to coding agents. Things like Nim are a small, adversarially structured task family and it's not representative of language / coding / real-world tasks. Nim is almost the worst possible case, the optimal optimal policy is a brittle, discontinuous function.
Alphago is pure RL from scratch, this is quite challenging, inefficient, and unstable, and why we dont do that with LLMs, we pretrain them first. RL is not used to discover invariants (aspects of the problem that don't change when surface details change) from scratch in coding agents as they are in this example. Pretraining takes care of that and RL is used for refinement, so a completely different scenario where RL is well suited.
> “AlphaZero excels at learning through association,” Zhou and Riis argue, “but fails when a problem requires a form of symbolic reasoning that cannot be implicitly learned from the correlation between game states and outcomes.”
Seems relevant.
Humans learn.
Agents regurgitate training data (and quality training data is increasingly hard to come by).
Moreover, humans learn (somewhat) intangible aspects: human expectations, contracts, business requirements, laws, user case studies etc.
> Verifiable domain performance SCALES, we have no reason to expect that this scaling will stop.
Yes, yes we have reasons to expect that. And even if growth continues, a nearly flat logarithmic scale is just as useless as no growth at all.
For a year now all the amazing "breakthrough" models have been showing little progress (comparatively). To the point that all providers have been mercilessly cheating with their graphs and benchmarks.
I'm just going to ask that you read any of my other comments, this is not at all how coding agents work and seems to be the most common misunderstanding of HN users generally. It's tiring to refute it. RL in verifiable domains does not work like this.
> Humans learn.
Sigh, so do LLMs, in context.
> Moreover, humans learn (somewhat) intangible aspects: human expectations, contracts, business requirements, laws, user case studies etc.
Literally benchmarks on this all over the place, I'm sure you follow them.
> Yes, yes we have reasons to expect that. And even if growth continues, a nearly flat logarithmic scale is just as useless as no growth at all.
and yet its not logarithmic? Consider data flywheel, consistent algorithmic improvements, synthetic data [basically: rejection sampling from a teacher model with a lot of test-time compute + high temperature],
> For a year now all the amazing "breakthrough" models have been showing little progress (comparatively). To the point that all providers have been mercilessly cheating with their graphs and benchmarks.
Benchmaxxing is for sure a real thing, not to mention even honest benchmarking is very difficult to do, but considering "all of the AI companies are just faking the performance data" to be the "story" is tremendously wrong. Consider AIME performance on 2025 (uncontaminated data), the fact that companies have a _deep incentive_ to genuinely improve their models (and then of course market it as hard as possible, thats a given). People will experiment with different models, and no benchmaxxing is going to fool people for very long.
If you think Opus 4.6 compared to Sonnet 3.x is "little progress" I think we're beyond the point of logical argument.