Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's funny we're already at the "actually this isn't very impressive" stage when it was a little over a year ago when we were making fun of LLMs for not being able to add numbers. IC production takes a vast amount of resources and wealth, and it's a known quantity (after all, we've been doing it for decades), but it's still impressive what modern fabs can achieve.
Afaik LLMs still can't add numbers. They've just had their system prompts updated to make them use a tool call for any arithmetic.
Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher
581–585 of 585 posts
Re: Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher
#582Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think a single person reading or upvoting had ever heard of this extremely obscure cipher until this post hit the front page, it's not "cope" to use basic critical thinking to ask questions like "was this cipher well known" and "were there many attempts to solve it before now"... that's pretty much Information Literacy 101.
I think the point is that rather than YOU finding out the answers to those questions, and post only if the answers were indicative of some "gotcha", someone ALWAYS posts something similar to your OP as a lazy/low-effort way to discredit LLMs.
Re: Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher
#583Re: Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher
#584Prior to the "Elicitation" section, you'd think this article was written by a cryptographer or baroque historian who had been trying to solve this particular puzzle for years - failing embarrassingly until they presented the problem to Claude. However, as far as I can tell (I too am not a baroque historian), there isn't much reason to think this cipher was well-known or studied. But as they do eventually explain, the…
"THE Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher" Yes, this language always insinuates it's a well-known thing even though no one ever heard of it, other than two people on the far side of Europe.