[dataviz1000]

I've spent ~$500 this month trying to get an LLM model to solve a Rubik's Cube. They can't. I'll post my Rubik's Cube MCP server next week if anyone wants to prove me wrong.

1. a human child learning 6 algorithms and a weekend can solve a Rubik's Cube

2. Reenforcement learning can solve a Rubik's Cube

3. The best LLM model using recursive tuning or not can't solve a Rubik's Cube.

Claude 4.6 got 60% of the way but couldn't figure out the last steps after running for 20+ minutes and hundreds of thousands of tokens.

[ReptileMan]

I am not sure how to say it exactly, but right now we are in situation in which we are complaining that a magical technology is not magical enough.

[SpaceNoodled]

No, we're complaining that a technology that's hyped as an expert-level replacement for humans is completely inept.

[dataviz1000]

I'm not even complaining.

I'm stating that LLM models are not capable of predicting the consequences of their actions which makes in inept with spacial and temporal understanding of the environment state.

I like the Rubik's Cube because it is a harness that helps me try to develop a prompt to get reasoning models to reason about the consequence of an action.