> If you’re under the impression that these models are “glorified autocomplete” or that progress is slowing down, I need to urge you: stop thinking that. The models are very intelligent and capable, they are getting better at a fast clip. I can cite measurable and impressive progress over just the past five months on specific types of problem I’ve asked them to look at. [...]
> On the other hand: if you think that models are super-intelligent or that AGI is already here, you should also stop thinking that. Working with these tools is like swimming in a pond where the ground drops off sharply. One minute you’re wading comfortably and there’s support under your feet. Then suddenly you cross a specific line, and you’re back to swimming on your own.
Personally I like to remind people that these things are next-token predictors, but then emphasize how truly astonishing the results we can get out of sufficiently advanced next-token predictors are.
> The tokens it "predicts" aren't sampled from any naturally occurring distribution; the model's output is the result of an optimisation process that rewarded behaviour that was useful, and that's fundamentally different.
"Surprisingly, we find that the current training setup does not elicit fundamentally new reasoning patterns. While RLVR-trained models outperform their base models at small k (e.g., k = 1), the base models achieve a higher pass@k score when k is large. Coverage and perplexity analyses show that the observed reasoning abilities originate from and are bounded by the base model. "
> Coverage and perplexity analyses show that the observed reasoning abilities originate from and are bounded by the base model
On the face of it this seems unsurprising given the policy gradient term directly minimises this difference.
I don't have a good feel for how the output of an RLVR-trained model concretely differs from the base model. My guess would be there are a fairly small number of "forks" where the training creates a token flip that sends the model down a more useful path.
The fact that the straight paths between the forks resemble the base model would again be unsurprising since (a) those are exactly the right context to continue to elicit more output that's relevant to solving the problem (so not penalised by RLVR), and (b) preservation drops naturally out of the policy gradient term you add to limit catastrophic forgetting in the base model.
Low perplexity could be explained by the relative sparsity of the forks in the output stream, and/or by forks already having high entropy in the base model. That also aligns with the pass-at-high-k: yes it's doing more exploration without training but it's a bit of a monkeys-on-typewriters situation.
Lack of novelty is readily explained by the fact that you need some nonzero pass rate in the base model to actually get some useful training signal from RLVR. That's a limitation of contemporary RLVR techniques, not a limitation on post-training in general.
I think there's room in that forks-and-straights characterisation for the RLVR'd model to be doing something that looks a lot like computation, while having low perplexity vs the base model. I don't see anything in my admittedly incredibly shallow skim of the paper that refutes that.
Let's stipulate that what pretraining does is train next token prediction over a gigantic corpus. You can then sample from this distribution repeatedly (cf the Large Language Monkeys paper) and count how often it passes some deterministic verifier.
What GRPO-style RLVR does is precisely this, but then reward the trajectories which passed the verifier. These distributions are _by construction_ within the accessible output space of the pretrained model; you're reweighting the distribution so that pass@k goes up, because that's (for applications like programming) very useful. RLVR is about making sampling more efficient; the only new information being added to the system is the presence of the verifier, and note that you only get a reward when the verifier passes, so there's essentially no mechanism for "teaching new facts" here.
You can get into RL as part of explaining why it's so unnervingly good at picking a next token.
I guess it was more the "predictor" part I had issue with. There's a tendency to reach for statistical or probabilistic terminology to describe things that aren't usefully understood in those terms. For example in the "Speed Always Wins" LLM technical survey (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2508.09834):
> The gate is a crucial component to bring sparsity in MoE models. For a batch of input token representations X ∈ RT×D, the gate function G determines the probabilities of dispatching token xi to each expert e
...which is nonsense: the gate simply, directly, selects the experts. There's nothing probabilistic about it.
It's harder to believe something is conscious or threatening to achieve word domination once you understand that it's a machine that statistically figures out which word should come next.
I recommend this explanation: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/next-token-predictor-is-an-...
(Note: I don't actually think the consciousness question is the most important one in the near term. Where I think this line of reasoning gets really dangerous is when people use it to assert that LLMs can't or won't engage in certain behaviors no matter much they advance; this doesn't have anything to do with consciousness.)
So for consciousness and LLMs it could be Qualia, lack of semantic understanding, lack of continuity in time, lack of a high degree of integrated causal feedback, etc.
Or perhaps those are just features of human consciousness but not integral to consciousness as a whole. To me this then implies panpsychism to some degree, which I'm alright with too.
But qualia are not directly measurable and the rest of the list only matters if those features are necessary for qualia, which we can't decide without such measurements or at least a strong theoretical model.
But LLMs are only operating on text and humans are only operating on <waves hands>
That sentence gives the impression that Mythos might be released in the future. That's clearly not going to happen - it's already "released" in as much as selected, trusted partners can access it, and the rest of us get it in the form of Fable - which is Mythos but with filters that downgrade you if you try to use it for anything even remotely related to cybersecurity or biology.
(The other day Fable 5 downgraded me to Opus after I asked it to explain the difference between tusks and teeth.)
Now obviously you can and should retort with hallucination and confabulation rates from external and Ant's own reports per model (pretty sure more advanced models are good at lying better, not less) instead of going with dumb "more expensive more accurate" mental model, but general principle stands for me still AFAIK.
it's not exactly rational I admit, but if I'm going to base my own work and reasoning from an LLM I'm going with the best available. This seems to trip up most normies because they are too lazy or too greedy to pay up for premium access and see for themselves why most of us are both awed and afraid. Generally, I'm too biased and too deep in ML/DL cargo cult (been in it since 2016) to know if the skepticism and disdain for such usage is warranted.
In general, I think the tools are broadly toxic in a Dune-sense of making me think less for myself, because just as any HN-poster knows coding and doing mundane low-level stuff is necessary the same way doing stretches is necessary before any workout. The process itself is what keeps your brain strong and its gradients from veering into overfitting. I'm not overly bullish on the whole reaching for the stars ending with these things. Paradoxically, you using them eventually hobbles both you and the model, because you become dumber and then you bottleneck their ability to self-direct (broadly true for next Mythos/GPT-7).
Sorry for a long rant, was just anticipating some things I'd have to say for myself.
it is fun how well this works.
i cant find the link immediately (will look and edit with it), but somewhere in the "hello there the jacobian conjecture is false thanx" thread, someone brought up a different conjecture breakthrough where the prompts were basically just repeated "no, keep going" until a result was found.
edit: https://chatgpt.com/share/6a60b2eb-0b64-83ee-9c76-7931ca1de0...
i especially like "you should do a breakthrough". each prompt is less than ~20 words. makes me really question the whole "prompt engineering" stuff.
This is well past prompt engineering and into process engineering like six sigma. Just like in an early industrial revolution factory, we’re all still figuring out what works in the process of making stuff except this is so early that even simple things like “make this screw standardized” (or “no, keep going” in this case) is really high impact.
The degrees of freedom an LLM has is so large that we're going to be exploring their capabilities for decades, especially if they continue to get better. This is why IMO experts are always going to be better at LLMs in their field because they can force them LLM into processes (think prompt engineering -> CC dynamic workflows) that follow their work processes and get much better results out of them than “keep going.”
in my head, the comparison is the multi-paragraph prompts (borderline essays) i would read in various communities on reddit and similar forums, that people (often self-proclaimed "prompt engineers") said were "required" to get good output. or some of the prompts ive read in various logs that are like a thousand words of setup.
even looking back at the first prompts i was sending when i started to use chatgpt were (in hindsight) crazy long and full of unnecessary guidance/caveats/"ignore xyz"/etc.
Not sure when you started. However: I would never judge the necessity of details provided 2 or 3 years ago based on results that the current models give.
What a weird species of halting problem…
Its quite likely they now found the counterexample with a more serious prompt, and then for virality re-tried a few times with meme-prompts like "you should do a breakthrough", knowing that the model is capable of solving this particular one. Worst case the meme-prompts don't work and they share the real one they initially used.
i am not sure why this is "quite likely". it'd be pretty silly to get a mathematical breakthrough and then hide it for an undisclosed amount of time to get a few more likes on a tweet, when the impressive part is the breakthrough.
not saying your theory is impossible, but i think the simple answer is that the model is just smarter than o1 and o3.
and, in any case, the model ended up getting the result with the meme prompt and "keep going", which was what i find fun. just like how the crypto results were from prompts of, more or less, "keep going", and that's pretty damn cool.
I agree with you that obviously no prompt engineering was needed just "solve this problem", but imagine it was you doing this problem with every model, wouldn't you have tested a new model with the best prompt you had from previous iterations, maybe with some partial previous results in it, exactly to maximize your probability for a mathematical breakthrough?
did i just read two summaries/TLDRs (in a row) of the already-two-sentence summary right above?