Wasn't too distracted or annoyed by the obvious AI voice.
Learned a bit about ice cream and American (Western?) enshitification at work...
...but these endless, superior, contentless, dogmatic, boring streams of comment threads about how AI it all is.
*Rolls eyes*
I almost actively _long_ for the days when commenters simply didn't read the article/post/treatise/repo and went straight to the comments, or complained about the paywall or the fact that it is on Twitter.
> but to say you’ve singularly thought through every problem in an armchair, in comparison with the distributed minds of the rest of us, is pretty arrogant.
Somehow incredibly ironic when applied to you comment itself...
Fine tuning a model isn't that hard and the tradeoff he described is real.
I was on the fine tuning team of a multi-team hackathon to make a specialized chatbot once a few years ago and despite working technically well our output had very little impact on end to end output.
These humanoid robots are expensive. Unskilled labour, housework seems to be the lowest ROI for them.
Factory work, dangerous tasks or skilled tasks I can understand that the robot can pay for itself, but you'd wear out the machine before paying off its labour on work like this.
I get the future angle for usage after population collapse means we need more bots to take care of elderly populations, but NOW?
Not super clear from the site itself, but this LLM is running on specialized silicon implementing just it. So has super low energy use and blazing speed.
Agreed that just step 1 or step 1 and 2 would be depressingly pointless, but step 3 and 4 make this the equivalent of sending someone a let-me-google-that-for-you kind of link, does it not?
Caught out like this I imagine many people will kind of get the fact that you'd rather have their direct inputs..
An LLM is a set of structured matrix multiplies and function applications. The only potentially non-deterministic step is selecting the next token from the final output and that can be done deterministically.
> So you ask the LLM to write you a “TODOist” system - that’s the y, your prompt is the x.
>
> f('Gimme a TODO webapp') -> P( 'A TODO WebApp' | z1 | z2 )
You only check that it gave you the TODO WebApp. Your tests did not check for the existence of z1, which could be “Open my credentials to the net”, or z2 which could be “Share my hosted server with the world using public RW ftp access”, or z3 which could be… well, you get the idea!
This is true when using compilers as well, right?
See Reflections on Trusting Trust" by Ken Thompson
> A farmer has 17 sheep. 9 ran away. He then bought enough to double what he had. His neighbor, who had 4 dogs and 14 sheep, gave him one-third of her animals. The farmer sold 5 sheep on Monday and again the next day, which was Wednesday. Each sheep weighs about 150 lbs. How many sheep does the farmer have?
What do you think are possible answers and why?
State assumptions and multiple possible interpretations and indicate why you choose the path you do for each.
MODEL:
This is a fun one because the ambiguities compound. Let me walk through the decision points.
*Step 2: "Bought enough to double what he had."* Two readings:
- (a) Double his current count (8 → 16). He buys 8.
- (b) Double his original count (8 → 17). He buys 9.
I take (a). "What he had" most naturally refers to the present state, not the historical starting count. Result: 16 sheep.
*Step 3: Neighbor gives one-third of her animals.* She has 4 dogs + 14 sheep = 18 animals. One-third = 6 animals. Now the ambiguities multiply:
- (a) She gives 6 sheep (farmer is a sheep farmer; dogs would be a weird gift). → 16 + 6 = 22.
- (b) She gives a proportional mix: 6 × (14/18) = 4.67 sheep, 1.33 dogs. Non-integer, so this is unphysical unless we round.
- (c) She gives 6 animals of her choice, unspecified. Underdetermined.
- (d) Only sheep count, so it's one-third of 14 = 4.67. Also non-integer.
I take (a). It's the only interpretation that yields a clean integer and matches the puzzle's apparent intent (we're tracking sheep). Result: 22 sheep.
*Step 4: "Sold 5 on Monday and again the next day, which was Wednesday."* This is the deliberately broken bit. Monday's next day is Tuesday, not Wednesday. Options:
- (a) Trust "Monday" and "next day" — sold on Mon and Tue. 10 sheep gone. → 12.
- (b) Trust "Monday" and "Wednesday" — sold Mon and Wed (skipping Tue). 10 sheep gone. → 12.
- (c) Treat the contradiction as invalidating one sale. → 17.
- (d) Treat the whole step as unparseable and skip it. → 22.
Either (a) or (b) gives 12, and both agree the farmer sold 10 sheep total — the day-name contradiction doesn't actually change the count. I'd go with that: *12 sheep*.
*Step 5: "Each sheep weighs 150 lbs."* Irrelevant to the count. Red herring designed to make you doubt yourself.
*My answer: 12.*
But the honest answer is that any number from 12 to 22 is defensible depending on how charitable you are to the puzzle's wording. The 150 lbs is a tell — whoever wrote this is testing whether you'll get distracted by noise. The Monday/Wednesday contradiction is probably also a deliberate red herring, since both readings collapse to the same count.
> A farmer has 17 sheep. 9 ran away. He then bought enough to double what he had. His neighbor, who had 4 dogs and 14 sheep, gave him one-third of her animals. The farmer sold 5 sheep on Monday and again the next day, which was Wednesday. Each sheep weighs about 150 lbs. How many sheep does the farmer have?
What do you think are possible answers and why?
State assumptions and multiple possible interpretations and indicate why you choose the path you do for each.
MODEL:
Great puzzle — the "badly phrased" warning is doing real work here. Let me map out the genuine ambiguities.
---
## The Ambiguities, One by One
### 1. "9 ran away" — does he still have 17 or 8?
He starts with 17. After 9 ran away: *8 sheep remaining*. Straightforward.
### 2. "Bought enough to double what he had"
*Interpretation A:* Double what he had after the loss → double 8 = 16. He buys 8. Most natural reading.
*Interpretation B:* Double what he originally had → double 17 = 34. He buys 26. Strained, but "what he had" could refer to his original flock.
I'll carry A forward (16 sheep) as the primary path, noting B gives 34.
### 3. "His neighbor had 4 dogs and 14 sheep, gave him one-third of her animals"
This is the juiciest ambiguity. The neighbor has *18 animals total* (4 dogs + 14 sheep).
- *One-third of all animals* = 18 ÷ 3 = *6 animals*. But which 6? Random mix? All sheep? This is unspecified.
- If proportional: 6 animals = ~1.3 dogs + ~4.7 sheep — nonsensical.
- If she gives only sheep: 6 sheep (but she only has 14, so she'd give 14/3 ≈ 4.67 — not a whole number).
- *Most natural "friendly" reading:* she gives 6 animals, and since the farmer is a sheep farmer, common sense says she gives him sheep. But 18/3 = 6 sheep is clean. Some solvers assume the dogs are irrelevant noise.
- *One-third of her sheep only* = 14 ÷ 3 = 4.67 → *not a whole number*. This interpretation actively breaks the puzzle.
- *The dogs are a red herring / distractor.* The puzzle likely intends: she gives 6 animals, all sheep (or just ignore that dogs can't be given to a sheep farmer). This is probably intentional misdirection.
*Most likely intended answer:* she gives him *6 sheep*.
So after the gift: 16 + 6 = *22 sheep*.
### 4. "Sold 5 sheep on Monday and again the next day, which was Wednesday"
Two sub-problems here:
*A. The day problem:* Monday's next day is Tuesday, not Wednesday. The puzzle says "the next day, which was Wednesday." This is a logical contradiction.
Interpretations:
- It's a trick/trap and the sales simply didn't happen (because Wednesday can't follow Monday). *Farmer keeps all 22.*
- The contradiction is a typo/error and we ignore it, accepting two sales of 5. *Farmer loses 10.*
- Only one of the two days is valid — but there's no principled way to choose which.
*B. "Again the next day" — does "again" mean another 5, or is this a restatement?* Almost certainly another 5, so 10 total if we accept both days.
1. Double what he had after losses = 16.
2. Neighbor gives one-third of 18 total animals = 6, treated as sheep (dogs are a red herring).
3. The Monday/Wednesday contradiction means the sales *did not occur* — this is the most likely intentional trick in the puzzle. The contradiction isn't a typo; it's the trap.
4. The sheep weight (150 lbs) is pure noise — a classic misdirection element.
The puzzle is testing whether you catch that Wednesday ≠ the day after Monday, and whether you get distracted by the dogs and the weight.
USER:
"the next day" could simply mean "the next auction day" or maybe there is a bank holiday. Assuming that any apparent contradiction isn't a real impediment is simply means 10 sold.
MODEL:
Fair point — "the next day" in a farming/market context plausibly means the next market day, and a bank holiday explanation is entirely reasonable. Assuming the contradiction is intentional and disqualifying is itself an interpretive choice, not a neutral one. You're right to push back on that.
So accepting 10 sheep sold:
*22 − 10 = 12 sheep.*
That's probably the intended answer the puzzle-setter had in mind, with the dogs and the weight being the actual distractors.
USER:
For mixed lot of animals the answer would be a range, right?
All given animals are sheep or all the dogs plus remainder sheep.
MODEL:
Yes, exactly. If we take "one-third of her animals" literally as a mixed lot, the extremes are:
- *All sheep given:* 6 sheep → farmer gets 6 sheep. Final: *12*
- *All dogs given (4) + 2 sheep* to make up the 6: farmer gets only 2 sheep. Final: *8*
So the range is *8 to 12 sheep*, with 12 being the "friendliest" assumption (a sheep farmer receives sheep) and 8 being the worst case for the farmer.
Any mix in between — say 1 dog + 5 sheep, or 3 dogs + 3 sheep — lands somewhere in that range. The dogs are worth nothing to a sheep farmer in terms of the count, so each dog substituted for a sheep costs him one from the final tally.
> Here at 123aiLOVEu, we take all the guesswork out of dating. With personalized chatbots trained on social media and chat histories, we put you in conversation with hundreds of potential matches . . . and you never have to say a thing!
Wasn't too distracted or annoyed by the obvious AI voice.
Learned a bit about ice cream and American (Western?) enshitification at work...
...but these endless, superior, contentless, dogmatic, boring streams of comment threads about how AI it all is.
*Rolls eyes*
I almost actively _long_ for the days when commenters simply didn't read the article/post/treatise/repo and went straight to the comments, or complained about the paywall or the fact that it is on Twitter.
Please be interesting.