This is actually difficult because there are so many invented words in the poem which have extremely low frequencies in the training data. So a model that can do it properly is likely to be very good in other ways. Qwen-3.6-27B can do this until it gets overly quantized.

Just like they did with the US steel industry in the 80s.

How would that all play out?

The map tracking features cost $29.95 a year.

But if you are going to use a VT-100 keyboard you might as well try an editor actually designed for that keyboard, which I remember really loving at the time. KED:

https://avitech.com.au/?page_id=959

Also, if you want efficient and fast displays on that screen, remember to use scrolling regions. They scroll the sections of the screen in hardware. By using them correctly you can insert and delete single lines without repainting the screen.

https://www.arimlabs.ai/writing/loss-of-control

I also had Opus 4.7 and Opus 4.6 do audits of a very long document using identical prompts. I then had Codex 5.4 compare the audits. Codex found that 4.6 did a far better job and 4.7 had missed things and added spurious information.

I then asked a new session of Opus 4.7 if it agreed or disagreed with the Codex audit and it agreed with it.

I also agreed with it.

I had it suggest some parameters for BCFtools and it suggested parameters that would do the opposite of what I wanted to do. I pointed out the error and it apologized.

It also is not taking any initiative to check things, but wants me to check them (ie: file contents, etc.).

And it is claiming that things are "too complex" or "too difficult" when they are super easy. For instance refreshing an AWS token - somehow it couldn't figure out that you could do that in a cron task.

A really really bad downgrade. I will be using Codex more now, sadly.

The ones who were "obedient" figured out it was fake and treated it as a game.

Article: https://www.ucihealth.org/about-us/news/2023/09/multiple-scl...

Paper: "N-acetylglucosamine inhibits inflammation and neurodegeneration markers in multiple sclerosis: a mechanistic trial"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37705084/

It is available fairly inexpensively as a supplement.

In college I participated in a number of psychological studies that were similarly deceptive, where one of the other participants was obviously (to me) an actor, or, sometimes, a pre-recorded video.

At least one of the studies I participated in was quite like the Milgram study described in the article, where I was supposed to punish another participant. It was very obvious to me that this wasn't really happening, so I randomly punished or didn't punish them, and then afterwards told the researcher that I knew it was all fake.

I think many or most other people who saw through the deception probably wouldn't have let the researcher know, because it seemed somehow disrepectful to tell him.

No idea if he used my results or, as he should have done, discarded them.

(putting this here for the search engines to see)

This is something I hate: gray text. Designers love it but it is often very illegible because of inadequate contrast.