Post by @inthehands@hachyderm.io

RE: https://unstable.systems/@jneen/116618931097778342

Worth looking at both the quoted text here and •especially• the linked page, which is quite good.

I’ll add another item of my own. The first screenshot mentions giving an LLM the task of “implementing an HTTP server in JavaScript from scratch” in 90 minutes. Sounds impressive, right? Until you remember that every open-source Javascript HTTP server in existence ••was in the training data••.

jneen collective

@jneen@unstable.systems 5 mo. ago

Extremely good and concise summary of the statistical/methodological shenanigans involved in measuring the so-called "AI boost"

Here's a couple of my favourites:

https://third-bit.com/2026/05/20/twelve-ways-to-be-wrong/

1 Boost

0 Likes

Paul Cantrell

@inthehands@hachyderm.io 5 mo. ago

IT WAS IN THE TRAINING DATA. Your test gave the machine a pile of correct answers and free license to plagiarize.

I remember people being wowed that Claude Code could implement a complete C compiler. But somehow it doesn’t sound quite as impressive when you phrase it as “given every existing C compiler as input, the LLM can produce a C compiler as output.”

Paul Cantrell

@inthehands@hachyderm.io 5 mo. ago

It’s just •astonishing• how many eye-popping stories of LLMs doing amazing omg-verge-of-magical-superintelligence things turn out to be just unvarnished plagiarism.

In the first months after ChatGPT’s release, I remember a French dept colleague being amazed that GPT could translate and summarize a passage of Le Petit Prince.

It was a lot less impressive when I dug up the 2 or 3 online passages which it had copied almost verbatim and stitched together (sprinkling in a couple of extra words that made it less accurate).

Paul Cantrell

@inthehands@hachyderm.io 5 mo. ago

To be fair, competent plagiarism is a nontrivial task. It takes skill for a human to do: finding relevant fragments from an input dataset and stitching those fragments together in a well-formed way is not nothing! It’s impressive and interesting that people have figured out how to make machines do it.

But •that• is not the promise on which investors are valuing the AI megajuggernaut at trillions of dollars.

Paul Cantrell

@inthehands@hachyderm.io 5 mo. ago

The reasons we consider plagiarism to be cheating in school and malpractice in professional contexts are many of the same reasons that LLMs are not going to replace all knowledge-based human labor. (Details left as an exercise for the reader.)

And yes, a whole lot of what LLMs do •would• count as plagiarism if one of my students did it manually, and •should• count as plagiarism just the same if they use a machine to do it — not just in a “that’s cheating!!” sense, but more importantly in a “that’s not really doing the work” sense.

1 more reply