m-hodges

> Starting today, API customers globally will be able to opt in to text watermarking for select models. Text watermarking will remain off by default in the API.

> Over the coming weeks, we will add an invisible watermark to eligible ChatGPT and Codex text output in the European Union.

Man I loved Hasbro’s 1998 Windows Stratego

https://archive.org/details/STRATEGO

Remember that "Where's the Shovelware?"¹ post?

¹ https://mikelovesrobots.substack.com/p/wheres-the-shovelware...

Yeah, I didn’t read a lot of books in high school (do read a lot more books as an adult!), but I did read a lot of information while sitting at a desktop computer.

Oh hey I just wrote about Hofstadter's deployment of Bongard problems to make may of these points in GEB: https://matthodges.com/posts/2026-08-19-bongard-problems/

> We discovered that Moonshot AI, the company that produces the Kimi family of models, silently forwarded customer requests to Claude, instead of processing them using Kimi. Moonshot then displayed Claude’s responses to users. These users thought they were using a Kimi model, but received responses from Claude instead.

> DeepSeek also silently relayed exchanges to Claude without informing DeepSeek customers.

> MiniMax built its own proxy network service through a shell company. This shell company has no obvious links to MiniMax and does not disclose its relationship to its parent company. This shell proxy network service only offers access to models developed by Anthropic and OpenAI. The service does not offer access to any Chinese models, including Minimax’s own.

A few quotes towards the end of GEB:

> I see no barrier imposed by Gödel’s Theorem to the implementation on computers (or their successors) of types of symbol manipulation that achieve roughly the same results as brains do.

And a distinction between intelligence and consciousness:

> It is entirely another question to try and duplicate in a program some particular human’s mind—but to produce an intelligent program at all is a more limited goal.

And then:

> Gödel’s Theorem doesn’t ban our reproducing our own level of intelligence via programs

That is pretty hard to square with "GEB argued that AI couldn’t achieve intelligence without first mastering Gödelian self-reference."

A bit more introspective:

> I think that the process of coming to understand Gödel’s proof, with its construction involving arbitrary codes, complex isomorphisms, high and low levels of interpretation, and the capacity for self-mirroring, may inject some rich undercurrents and flavors into one’s set of images about symbols and symbol processing, which may deepen one’s intuition for the relationship between mental structures on different levels.

I've used concepts from GEB a lot in my thinking about how LLMs.

On self-referentiality and the MU Puzzle: https://matthodges.com/posts/2025-04-21-openai-o4-mini-high-...

On Gödelian limits of prompt-safe AI : https://matthodges.com/posts/2025-08-26-music-to-break-model...

On the blurry line between pattern matching and reasoning: https://matthodges.com/posts/2026-08-19-bongard-problems/

I'm glad that the author of this post ends with:

> What’s left? Consciousness

because when I've read (and re-read) GEB, I find the book to be much deeper than just a threshold for conversational intelligence.