I struggle to believe that AI R&D is ingenious

Re:I struggle to believe that AI R&D is ingenious by Gareth321 on Friday November 06, 2026 @02:55AM (#50389419)

This reads like someone who tried Codex a few times with a blank system prompt and no context and came to the conclusion LLMs are dumb. All of those four examples are handled well by Opus 5.5. Especially with context and competent direction.

The worst part of his premise is that they can be overcome by increased intelligence. He’s not describing fundamental limitations. Meaning that it’s inevitable that his examples will be “solved.” At least better than humans. Meaning the R&D is obviously valuable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I struggle to believe that AI R&D is ingenious by fwlr on Friday November 06, 2026 @03:01AM (#50389460)

It reads to me like he’s using Astra. This is based on me reading the comment, and seeing him say he’s using Astra several times, eg:

  For example, I improved the SOTA on "listing all legal Scrabble moves" by 10x just by prompting Astra over and over to try harder, to aim for <specific performance level>, to "systematically try every method in the literature that seems kind of related," etc.

Perhaps you should instead say something like “This seems amenable to Stock Dismissal #4”.

[ Parent | on HN ]