Re:Claude Opus 4.6
by MarcellusDrum on Friday February 06, 2026 @05:03AM
(#46911012)
So a good test would be replacing the spell names in the books with made-up spells. And if a "real" spell name was given, it also tests whether it "cheated".
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Claude Opus 4.6
by outofpaper on Friday February 06, 2026 @05:38AM
(#46911251)
A real test is synthesizing 100,000 sentences of this slect random ones and then inject the traits you want thr LLM to detect and describe, eg have a set of words or phrases that may represent spells and have them used so that they do something. Then have the LLM find these random spells in the random corpus.
It could still remember where each spell is mentioned. I think the only way to properly test this would be to run it against an unpublished manuscript.
Re:Claude Opus 4.6
by staticman2 on Friday February 06, 2026 @07:54AM
(#46912235)
Any obscure work of fiction or fanfiction would likely be fine as a casual test.
If you ask a model to discuss an obscure work it'll have no clue what it's about.
This is very different than asking about Harry Potter.
Yeah, that's what I've been doing as well, and at least Gemini 3 Pro did not fare very well.
Re:Claude Opus 4.6
by staticman2 on Friday February 06, 2026 @08:29AM
(#46912581)
For fun I've asked Gemini Pro to answer open ended questions about obscure books like "Read this novel and tell me what the hell is this book, do a deep reading and analyze" and I've gotten insightful/ enjoyable answers but I've never asked it to make lists of spells or anything like that.
I've run that experiment now, spoiler: It cheated with its pre-training knowledge
https://georggrab.net/content/opus46retrieval.html
Re:Claude Opus 4.6
by MarcellusDrum on Saturday February 14, 2026 @05:19AM
(#47013346)
Thanks for trying! Good to know.