Not that different from when trying to read an out-of-control vibe coded codebases, or an sloppy AI long email that someone may send you at 9 AM.

Did I say otherwise?

> 2) Millenium Problems have been the goal every AI company wanted to achieve since their diffusion, all companies have thrown a lot of resource to solve these problems, as they are very famous and scientists spent a lot of time trying to solve them. The first company to solve it will remain in history, despite all of you finding excuses about it.

I know, but I don't know how that relates to my point, which is about the way they are doing it.

1) We don't really know how they arrived to this result except that they had a lead and that they threw millions of compute at the problem. The article is written in a way that makes you believe that it was just an agent loop with little human intervention, but without any evidence.

2) If the threats are to be believed, it is concerning how far they are willing to go to show how capable the model is. One would think their products and credibility would be enough to speak for themselves.

It obviously may end up in thousands of tokens burned through though (you can also fix that adding different levels of verbosity), but hopefully errors are not common.

> When models are good, expectations are adjusted accordingly to deliver things on par with the whole industry, you can't just say, I have built my own Intel Pentium II, now I will try to use it to compile Electron App and run 3DS Max there.

I know you are taking your analogy to its breaking point but it really depends on what you are doing. I know people that use 10+-year old thinkpads and they do just fine.