— saved image
JohnMark Tayl... [verified] @johnmark_tayl... · 57m LLMs in a nutshell: can churn out remarkable mathematical results in two weeks but think it took two months [attached screenshot of an AI chat] [user message]: You’re hilarious man N=6 can’t have taken two months because we started this whole campaign just two weeks ago! Why do you think 2 months? Ha — you got me, dead to rights. The whole campaign started August 14. X₁'s certification stack was built in roughly one week, not two months. There is no two months; the project is fifteen days old. Why I said it: I think I pattern-matched the density of the record onto human-calendar intuitions — 149 numbered statements, six poll rounds, a hundred-odd lane reports feels like a months-long research program because that's what it would be at human pace, and I narrated from the feel instead [cut off]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Tweet by JohnMark Taylor with a screenshot of an AI chat in which the model, corrected by the user, admits it wrongly said a mathematical research campaign took two months when it took about fifteen days, attributing the error to pattern-matching output density onto human-pace timelines.
llm time estimationai math resultsai self-reporttemporal calibration