tripzilch

It seemed to get more LLM-y the further down, the first thing I noticed was when it said "genuinely" in a way that didn't fit the tone. Then it said "genuinely" again. Then I started paying attention and I noticed it was basically filling up every other sentence with bullshit to sound "clever". Stuff like

> reduces antialiased vector paths into unique triangle patches and rasterizes them through a massively parallel pipeline with pixel local storage

this is typical type of LLM sentence that kinda runs under the radar, sounds clever, but if you actually look at it, none of it makes sense

- what are "antialiased vector paths"?

- why mention "unique" triangle patches? (surely it wouldn't render duplicate ones)

- a "massively parallel pipeline"? like a GPU you mean?

- "pixel local storage" sounds like an obnoxious marketing term if it's not defined in the article (which it isn't)

anyway I quickly skimmed the article after that but it was little substance

They literally stopped just clear of actually solving it.

It literally couldn't have done it without tools, so your claim is not even relevant to this discussion.

They also pumped millions into searching for the lowest hanging fruit that would impress people like you, "hm I wonder how many millions they are pumping into solving actually useful problems like climate change or something".

So according to your logic, "understanding" means being capable of statistically generating tokens.

Okay fine. I think we can agree to disagree on that.

> How is this different from a human using an algorithm they have memorized, or reading it from a reference site written by a human and then writing the same formula into a custom one off piece of python code?

And how is _that_ different from making the human memorize a billion weights and do matrix calculations in their head, in order to generate tokens?

How is _that_ different from a hive of bees trained to do the same?

Go ahead, argue these things are all the same ...

You just have to trust the exponentials

Thanks for your pushback, sir. You're completely right.

so, what would make an LLM choose to ignore one prompt while in the same run, also over-fixating on another prompt, to the extent (as claimed in that video segment), it chooses to ignore prompts?

they talk about it like there's a "wanting" in there, that is distinct from both the original prompt, as the steering/warning prompt

if that's true, it would be very interesting, but if it's not, that would also be very interesting and even helpful

> 5 minutes... what about 5 hours, or 5 days? Imagine spending 5 hours with a pen and paper sketching solutions.

yeah, that's the dream. I do it whenever I get the opportunity to

> It would be more surprising if they couldn't string together something workable after a zillion tokens.

You mean, something like the sandbox they weren't supposed to break out of?

> They were not deliberately told to "go wild". The hacking wasn't even part of their test, it was the agents' attempt to cover up that they'd cheated on an impossible test.

TBH the more I read of these reports, the less I believe this.

These agents just weren't behaving in any way I've seen normal/publicly available agents do.

Sure I've heard (from other people, not seen myself) that they sometimes try to get around file system permissions or use `bash` to write when their `write` tool is disabled, or such.

But this is definitely another level, entirely.

There is this vague sense of desperation coming from many of these logs and I am sure they must have been motivated by something else, too.

We didn't see their system prompt or main prompt, right? We've only seen reports from what happened after deciding to break out.

OAI claims this was triggered by the task being literally impossible. That also doesn't quite add up, unless the other tasks that were possible, simply weren't hard enough? Otherwise wouldn't agents already start hacking when faced with a really hard task, too? Cause they wouldn't be able to differentiate. At least some of them would have started to somewhat poke their sandbox a bit?

Also I would have expected to see a few tens of other (perhaps less severe) public incidents from random people setting their models to YOLO, accidentally hacking stuff, this incident has been loud and messy enough, that if it happened to a few other people, we'd have heard about it.

Unless OAI's story is that it was specifically this batch of agents that crossed some threshold of going wild? (which would also raise some serious questions about how serious they take that danger ..).

Or maybe it is only dangerous if you have the compute resources to run 700 agents for weeks?

> This access seems to have only allowed the agents to make ‘GET’ requests, meaning they could fetch and read websites, but not interact with them, submit forms, or send data to them.

honest question, but almost literally everyone doing anything with web technology knows this is simply not true, right?

there's no such thing as "read only Internet" and restricting an agent to GET-requests only to accomplish that, is akin to using base64 for "encrypting" your password

No it looks like a pair of glasses.

People who don't know these "Meta glasses" exist (and they shouldn't need to), would have no idea that the thing is even capable of recording.

It's subterfuge and while you could argue that this subterfuge was "unintentional", but imho that's mincing words, and also given that it's Meta, not entirely in good faith.

Can I assume that you have good enough eye sight that you don't need to wear glasses if you choose to? Because as somebody who is absolutely dependent on glasses as a serious aid, it leaves a very bad taste they are literally hiding the recording device in a disability aid.

> running Qwen 3.6 35b a3b sipping 10w when generating tokens is good enough for a lot of my guide-coding work

can you tell more about how you're using it? like, what harness? or also in the IDE?

I found Qwen3.6 35B/A3B to make slightly too many mistakes (already in its harness' tool use, hence my question), maybe it gets the job done, but it will also sometimes generate a bit of a mess (e.g. editing/creating files in the wrong folders) and fixing/solving its own mistakes takes time (or tokens) ..

> I’m begging everyone to stop freaking out

someone has to protect Disney from these unjust opinions!