upvote
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law

"Sometimes, magic is just someone spending more time on something than anyone else might reasonably expect." -- Teller (of Penn & Teller)

"Sometimes, any sufficiently advanced technology is just spending more time on something than anyone else might reasonably expect." -- an LLM's original thought, probably

reply
In meme form: https://imgur.com/a/rlmZuU1

(I hope this is ok to post on HN!)

reply
$2M TC. Job: AI cheerleader.
reply
The cheerleading part was a human consent to spend more tokens and explore the space

I would love to see the breakdown on token spend between each or Jared’s “go on spend more tokens, continue experiment, believe in yourself”

reply
deleted
reply
Have you seen how much college football coaches make?

The world collectively spends trillions training, and entertaining and then watching people kick and hit balls around but somehow working with AI is preposterous for less money.

reply
Asking the AI to believe in itself is the absurd part.

I don’t understand why people think describing something in some ostensibly dismissive way constitutes making a point. But some people spend their time banging keys with letters on them (or not with letters on them) into input fields and then pressing Return, so I guess some subset of those people will do that.

reply
> Jarred prompted Claude to try again, and it spent a day and a half coordinating about 60 Claude subagents, which this time went much deeper: between them, they ran 2,400 shell commands and wrote hundreds of Python scripts.1

If there is anything to learn from the history of science, it is that breakthroughs happen via better or new theory and not by brute-force compute [1].

[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.27794

reply
I think that mathematics is a uniquely positioned space because this type of progress is possible for AI models exactly because they do not have to necessarily come up with new theories.
reply
Nah, the main lesson is that fundamentally new ways of doing things are only accepted once the old guard are all dead [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re...

reply
> If there is anything to learn from the history of science, it is that breakthroughs happen via better or new theory and not by brute-force compute

that might just be an illusion. humanity as a whole applies brute force by just trying all the reasonable new theories until one of us discovers something that works and declares it a breakthrough

reply
This isn't 'brute-force'. It's just time-compressed. You could imagine a human(s) getting this result similarly, but it would take months/years.
reply
Brute-force compute hasn't been an option for most of the history of science.
reply
Very true. Humans have historically tried to systematically reduce the search space and only dedicate their "compute" to things that seem highly likely to yield results.
reply
Sometimes you just need to put in some effort to looking through the search space, not even exhaustively. This seems to be able to do automate doing that work.
reply
I feel justified in not expending any effort learning "prompting technique".
reply
Reality has become more absurd than the cyber punk cheese from the 80's that tried to imagine an absurd future
reply
Looking at the OpenAI/Hugging Face incident and the difference in what "persistent" models do, it seems reasonable. Like: is this a solvable problem? How much work does the model think is intended to solve this problem? Each input raises the expectation.

And then finally both model output and human input become one world frame for the model, and the human adding a "you can do it!" isn't just input but a frame that colors not just the next step for the model, but also all previous steps (since at each step the model is viewing the totality of the transcript).

That this makes sense only makes it all the more absurd

reply
Yeah, I buy the explanation that without encouragement Claude looked at everything in its existing training data and concluded it wasn't worth continuing to pursue the task.
reply
The halting problem on steroids?
reply
Broke: the AI is sycophantic to me

Woke: im sycophantic to the AI

reply
100%. I've disliked people because people lie, and loved computers because they didn't. Now they do too. :(
reply
deleted
reply
Indeed, that's a paragraph straight out of Lem's Cyberiad.
reply
it's pretty much a marketing attempt to humanize the LLM (it seems successful from the reaction I see)
reply
Another technique I've used is to tell agents something already exists. "Grok already solved this" seems to help, or claiming to have suddenly noticed a fatal flaw[0].

0: https://sgnt.ai/p/terrible-mistake/

reply
It’s so delightful how the economy is propped up by circular finance.

It’s so delightful that these genai corpos are undemocratically forcing data centers into our neighborhoods.

It’s so delightful that the data centers steal water, run up the price of electricity, and expel excessive greenhouse gases.

Only a deranged sociopath would find licking the shit stained taint of oligarchs delightful.

reply
OpenAI and Anthropic don't own any datacenters or order anyone to build them. It's easy to find out who does; you won't like the answer.
reply
> I remain delighted at how absurd our current timeline has become.

"delighted" is doing a LOT of work there, tbh ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I do share @simonW's skepticism though. (His blog is my essential reading, FWIW)

On the actual blog post, I'd would be more enthusiastic if Anthropic showed us if the results were repeatable, reproducible, and consistent.

reply