311–320 of 569 posts
how?
A very neat problem and result. I often find myself swinging between "It's so over" and "We're so back" - some days I roll out of bed thinking I could have Claude solve some random unproven OEIS sequence before breakfast; other days, I wake up in a cold sweat worried about the fate of humanity and what the world might look like in a decade. I think it's that I don't have a very high p(doom) or p(utopia), and I don't…
I'm glad to have AI, but it is by no means a panacea, and correspondingly my p(doom) = ε.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assumed it was more because the LLM might echo an understandable human claim of "if it's been unsolved for 370 years, it's unlikely to be solved now/likely to need expert knowledge", which is probably a mindset that appears in its training data. The LLM likely needs to be reminded of its abilities.
> The LLM likely needs to be reminded of its abilities Like when it tells you something is 3 days of work but it can do it with some degree of guidance in a couple hours
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's not normalize the achievement. Just a couple years ago this would be considered science fiction. We can argue that 2026 AI can't solve the very toughest cryptograms, but the fact it can solve nontrivial ones is already magical. Now on to the Voynich Manuscript :)
What's so magical about the problem... Its the exact time of problem they were built to solve (things that can be brute forced with language). I'm not impressed.