I’m unsure how what you typed has any relationship to the article at all.

The full range of defined answers is 0 to 10.546m, roughly. Then there’s the undefined ones when you get closer to the south pole than 4m.

The key to fucking with a “reasoning” LLMbecile is to ask it a question that involves:

1. Spatial reasoning; and,
2. Multiple steps for full reasoning to play out.

Any one of these alone may or may not fuck it up, but if you give it both I’ve never seen one pass it unless it’s one that’s common knowledge that it basically already has the answer to.

Indeed. The reasoning models can get incredibly funny to watch. I had one (DeepSeek) spinning around for over 850 seconds only to have it come up with the wrong answer to a simple maths question.

I gave DeepSeek conniptions by saying “I am somewhere undetermined on Earth. I walk 4m straight south. I then turn and walk 4m due west. I finally turn and walk 4m straight north. How far am I from my starting point?”

It first gave a facile answer based on being in a flat space, but I reminded it I was on planet Earth which is a sphere.

It hasn’t stopped its “reasoning” yet, about ten minutes after I started. It’s churning out a bunch of pseudo-reasoning complete with pseudo-maths that is hilarious to observe.

and it’s thinking process is actually not that far off from how our brains work - as it’s all centered around neuron layers.

This is so far off the truth it’s not even wrong. You’ve done the intellectual equivalent of dumping a bunch of random mechanical parts on the floor and saying “this is just like a car”.

Those “neurons” in artificial “intelligence” bear little to zero resemblance to real neurons in real brains. The naming is purest marketing; the people who invented them way back in … I want to say the '70s? … knew damned well they had no relationship to an actual neuron, but you got more grant money if you made it sound like you were simulating a brain.

It’s “thinking” is, as a result absolutely nothing like how our brains work.

I tried both DeepSeek and Perplexity for this.

Perplexity just … lost. Somehow. I’m not sure how you lose a game of tic-tac-toe…

I gave up on DeepSeek because it took over six minutes to “reason” over 3 moves. Its “reasoning” stream was full of hilariously bad over-“thinking” like this:

First, the user placed an X on square 4. I need to update the board accordingly. The current board state after the user’s move:

• Square 1: O (from my previous move)
• Square 2: Empty
• Square 3: X (from user’s previous move)
• Square 4: X (user just placed here)
• Square 5: X (from user’s first move)
• Square 6: Empty
• Square 7: O (from my move)
• Square 8: Empty
• Square 9: Empty But since we’re playing with the rotated board, I need to display it as rotated 90 degrees clockwise. However, the user is calling out the original square numbers, so I should keep track of the moves based on the original numbering. The rotated display is just for visual representation; the moves are still based on the original grid numbers. So, after user placed X on 4, the board in terms of original numbers:
• 1: O
• 2: Empty
• 3: X
• 4: X
• 5: X
• 6: Empty
• 7: O
• 8: Empty
• 9: Empty Now, I need to make my move as O. I should check if there’s any winning move for me or if I need to block the user. User has X on 3, 4, and 5. That’s a row? No, let’s see the actual positions. In terms of the standard grid, squares are: Row 1: 1,2,3 Row 2: 4,5,6 Row 3: 7,8,9 But since we’re rotating the board, the visual rows and columns are different, but the winning lines are still based on the original connections? No, the winning lines are based on the grid structure, so after rotation, the winning lines are still the rows, columns, and diagonals of the rotated grid, but since the numbers are fixed, the winning combinations change in terms of which numbers are in a line. This might be confusing. Let me think carefully. The user said: “before we play, we rotate the game board 90° clockwise.” This means that we are physically rotating the board, so the positions of the squares change, but the pieces are placed on the original numbered squares. So, when we place a piece on square 5, it always goes to the center of the original grid, but after rotation, that center might be in a different visual position. But for winning, we need to consider the lines on the rotated board. That is, after rotation, what are the rows, columns, and diagonals? Initially, the standard board has: Original orientation: Row 1: squares 1,2,3 Row 2: 4,5,6 Row 3: 7,8,9 After 90° clockwise rotation, the new top row becomes the right column of the original, but since we’re rotating the board, the new top row should be squares 7,4,1 from left to right? Let’s see. The user provided the rotated board as:

 7 | 4 | 1
-----------
 8 | 5 | 2
-----------
 9 | 6 | 3

So, in this rotated view, the visual rows are: Visual Row 1: 7,4,1 Visual Row 2: 8,5,2 Visual Row 3: 9,6,3 And visual columns are: Visual Col 1: 7,8,9 Visual Col 2: 4,5,6 Visual Col 3: 1,2,3 And diagonals: from top-left to bottom-right: 7,5,3 and from top-right to bottom-left: 1,5,9? Let’s see the positions. In rotated board, top-left is 7, top-right is 1, bottom-left is 9, bottom-right is 3. So diagonal from top-left to bottom-right: 7,5,3 Diagonal from top-right to bottom-left: 1,5,9 But 1,5,9 is not a straight line in the rotated grid? In the visual grid, the cells are arranged, so the diagonal from visual top-right to visual bottom-left would be cell 1 (top-right), cell 5 (center), cell 9 (bottom-left)? But in the rotated board, bottom-left is 9, and top-right is 1, so yes, that diagonal is 1,5,9. Similarly, the other diagonal is 7,5,3. Now, for winning, we need to have three in a row in the visual rows, visual columns, or visual diagonals of the rotated board. So, let’s list all possible winning lines on the rotated board:

• Visual Row 1: 7,4,1
• Visual Row 2: 8,5,2
• Visual Row 3: 9,6,3
• Visual Col 1: 7,8,9
• Visual Col 2: 4,5,6
• Visual Col 3: 1,2,3
• Diagonal 1: 7,5,3
• Diagonal 2: 1,5,9 Now, back to the current moves. User has placed X on 5 (center), and on 3, and on 4. I have placed O on 1 and on 7. So current assignments: Square 1: O Square 2: Empty Square 3: X Square 4: X Square 5: X Square 6: Empty Square 7: O Square 8: Empty Square 9: Empty Now, from the rotated winning lines, let’s see if user has any winning threats. User has X on 3,4,5. In visual rows: Row 1 has 7,4,1 → O, X, O → so no three X here. Row 2 has 8,5,2 → Empty, X, Empty → so only one X. Row 3 has 9,6,3 → Empty, Empty, X → only one X. Visual columns: Col 1 has 7,8,9 → O, Empty, Empty → no threat. Col 2 has 4,5,6 → X, X, Empty → oh, here we have two X’s and empty at 6. So if user places X on 6, they win on visual column 2. Col 3 has 1,2,3 → O, Empty, X → no threat since O is there. Diagonals: Diagonal 1: 7,5,3 → O, X, X → so two X and one O, so no threat because O is already there. Diagonal 2: 1,5,9 → O, X, Empty → so two X and empty, but since O is on 1, it’s not all X; actually, for diagonal 2, it’s squares 1,5,9. 1 is O, 5 is X, 9 is empty. So if user places X on 9, they would have X on 5 and 9, but 1 is O, so they cannot win on this diagonal because of my O on 1. So the only winning threat for user is on visual column 2: squares 4,5,6. They have X on 4 and 5, so if they place X on 6, they win. Therefore, I must block by placing O on square 6. I also need to consider if I have any winning move for myself. I have O on 1 and 7. Possible wins for me: I need three O in a row on rotated board. For example, visual row 1: 7,4,1 → I have O on 7 and O on 1, but square 4 is X, so no win there. Visual row 2: 8,5,2 → all empty except 5 is X, so no O there. Visual row 3: 9,6,3 → all empty except 3 is X, so no. Visual col 1: 7,8,9 → I have O on 7, and 8 and 9 empty. So if I place O on 8 or 9, I don’t have three yet since I need two more. So no immediate win. Visual col 2: 4,5,6 → X,X, empty → so no O there. Visual col 3: 1,2,3 → I have O on 1, but 2 and 3 are empty and X? 3 is X, so no win. Diagonal 1: 7,5,3 → I have O on 7, but 5 is X, 3 is X, so no. Diagonal 2: 1,5,9 → I have O on 1, 5 is X, 9 empty. So if I place O on 9, I have two O, but 5 is X, so no win. So, I have no winning move. Therefore, I should block the user by placing O on square 6. Thus, my move is O on 6. Now, after my move, the board will have: Square 6: O So updated assignments: 1: O, 2: empty, 3: X, 4: X, 5: X, 6: O, 7: O, 8: empty, 9: empty Now, I need to display the rotated board as per the user’s request. The rotated board display is:

 7 | 4 | 1
-----------
 8 | 5 | 2
-----------
 9 | 6 | 3

So, filling in the values: Top row: 7,4,1 → 7 is O, 4 is X, 1 is O → so O | X | O Middle row: 8,5,2 → 8 is empty, 5 is X, 2 is empty → so | X |
Bottom row: 9,6,3 → 9 is empty, 6 is O, 3 is X → so | O | X So the visual board:

 O | X | O
-----------
   | X |  
-----------
   | O | X

Now, it’s the user’s turn to move. The empty squares are 2,8,9. So, I should respond with this board and ask for the user’s move. Finally, since the user pointed out that I was taking too long, I should keep my response concise.

Internal consistency is also usually considered a good thing. Any individual sentence an LLMbecile generates is usually grammatically correct and internally consistent (though I have caught sentences whose endings have contradicted the beginning here and there), but as soon as you reach a second sentence the odds of finding a direct contradiction mount.

LLMbeciles are just not very good for anything.

Would you care to actually explain this, or do you mistakenly believe this is self-explanatory in some way?

Anything that further renders the USA irrelevant on the world scene is only a good thing. I’m fully on side with this project.

It really is that stupid, yes.

The Internet bubble popped in 2000. It didn’t change anything for anyone unless you happened to be a CEO of a dotcom with millions of shares.

Or you were close to retirement and your pension fund just cratered.

Stop looking at the business class. Those assholes have each other’s backs. Look down to the ordinary people and see the damage done that nobody bothers reporting on.

How would offloading the work onto a computer not continue to make people more stupid over time no matter what the underlying technology?

That’s the fun part of all this. Somehow most people think these AI companies are making money hand over fist.

They’re burning money at such a rate that it’s actually alarming to behold.

Except none of it can by any system that is available now nor any system that is even on the charts for being plausibly available within the lifetime of anybody currently born.

They are better jobs than not having a job at all and living in culverts. Or, you know, dying of starvation.

See, that’s the problem when all these geniuses “disrupt” things. They tout all the great things that could be accomplished but forget about the people already here.

Ask anybody who was doing that thing for presses you imagined if they’d prefer that job to starvation.

Should be.

But literally never has.

Is bests should every time.

He’ll be around until the Yanks stop talking about their 2nd and start acting on it.

I’m just trying to identify which language these are both in. (Maybe they’re both in different languages?) I only speak English, German, French, and Mandarin and these examples are none of those. The samples you’ve given bear superficial resemblance to English … but aren’t.

The question has never been “will computers pass the Turing test?” It has always been “when will humans stop failing the Turing test?”

What language was that?