[inigyou]

Just take it as more confirmation that LLMs are unintelligent pattern-matchers.

[losvedir]

You must never have faced a situation where you can't believe your eyes. It takes a certain level of - dare I say it - intelligence and maturity to consider that it's more likely you've made a mistake than that you've made a huge breakthrough.

In HN terms - it's never the compiler. Yes, very occasionally it might be the compiler, but you're better off assuming it's a bug in your code.

[astrange]

> In HN terms - it's never the compiler. Yes, very occasionally it might be the compiler, but you're better off assuming it's a bug in your code.

Conversely:

- if your company has an internal compiler team then it's likely the compiler because they broke it.

- if it's not the compiler, you're not pushing it hard enough.

[baq]

statistical parrot indeed, just like the one which built the counterexample. maybe.

[lostmsu]

Or they just have more scepticism than some of present public.

[ashdksnndck]

Hmm, which of these is simple pattern matching?

1) refuting the Jacobian conjecture

2) keep repeating the same disproven statement, because your priors can’t be affected by new evidence