Paweł Szulc

7.7K posts

Paweł Szulc banner
Paweł Szulc

Paweł Szulc

@EncodePanda

Haskell, 范畴论, λ, Distributed Systems, Formal Methods

Poland Katılım Şubat 2009
666 Takip Edilen2.9K Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Paweł Szulc
Paweł Szulc@EncodePanda·
/s/rabbitonweb/EncodePanda
Català
6
0
9
0
Paweł Szulc
Paweł Szulc@EncodePanda·
"I'm no royalist but your 84 seconds of interaction did more to humanise Charles than anything I've watched on TV over many decades." youtube.com/watch?v=QABiQF…
YouTube video
YouTube
English
1
0
1
172
Paweł Szulc retweetledi
pikuma.com
pikuma.com@pikuma·
It's interesting how AI is constantly providing false information and incorrect statements about my area of expertise. Fortunately, it's very useful and always right about topics I know very little about.
English
89
656
8.2K
148.3K
Paweł Szulc
Paweł Szulc@EncodePanda·
LOL @lexi_lambda, I'm arguing (sic!) with Claude about how ridiculously stupid function it has written in Go, and this just happened: I have not mentioned you once in that conversation.
Paweł Szulc tweet media
English
0
1
11
3.8K
Paweł Szulc retweetledi
Dwarkesh Patel
Dwarkesh Patel@dwarkesh_sp·
Gödel's incompleteness theorem is one of those things that math popularisers always talk about as a hugely important result. But according to @3blue1brown, it almost never comes up in practice. It's a weird pathology that nobody expects to matter for the big questions.
English
58
33
892
225.1K
Paweł Szulc retweetledi
Ryan Peterman
Ryan Peterman@ryanlpeterman·
Avi Wigderson is the only person in history to have won both a Turing Award (computer science) and Abel Prize (math). I interviewed him all about his field. We discussed: • His intuition on a proof of P vs NP • Why we use SAT solvers for most NP problems • Zero knowledge proofs and their impact • Quantum computation and implications • Math and computer science's relationship Where to watch: • YouTube: youtu.be/5GUcvSAJcJw • Spotify: open.spotify.com/episode/4JZrdA… • Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the… • Transcript: developing.dev/p/turing-award… Thank you to this episode's sponsors for supporting my work: • WorkOS: makes your app Enterprise Ready with easy to use APIs to add SSO, SCIM, RBAC, and more in just a few lines of code, check them out at workos.com Timestamps: 00:00 - Intro 01:08 - P vs NP 14:51 - What if you relaxed correctness 25:38 - Why NP complete problems are equivalent 30:33 - Space vs time complexity 43:06 - Why people use SAT solvers 45:53 - Randomness is a resource 55:48 - Randomness depends on computational power 01:21:20 - Zero knowledge proofs and their significance 01:38:30 - Quantum computation and why it matters 01:56:24 - Math vs computer science 02:08:16 - Major breakthroughs and his experience 02:12:31 - Advice for his younger self 02:14:48 - Outro
YouTube video
YouTube
English
21
317
1.9K
258.5K
Paweł Szulc retweetledi
Debasish (দেবাশিস্) Ghosh 🇮🇳
Agent amnesia isn’t a feature - it’s an expensive habit. @modiqoai just dropped the cure with rote: turning one-shot agent explorations into permanent, deterministic flows that every future agent can reuse instantly. No more re-learning the same APIs. No hosted gateways. Just pure outcome maxxing. This is how agentic systems actually scale. Thread 👇is required reading w/ ☕
Modiqo Inc@modiqoai

Grab a cup of coffee and give us 5 minutes. We’ll explain rote, the primitives behind it, and why agent amnesia is an expensive hobby. The goal is simple: outcomemaxx, not tokenmaxx.

English
2
4
15
2.7K
Paweł Szulc retweetledi
Quint
Quint@quint_lang·
"There is no magical checkmark for software correctness." At Bug Bash 2026, @bugarela made the case for chasing confidence instead, and showed why the AI era raises the stakes. Here's a breakdown 🧵
Quint tweet media
English
2
8
22
1.2K
Paweł Szulc
Paweł Szulc@EncodePanda·
And now Claude is trying to gaslight me into thinking this is actually a good idea.
Paweł Szulc tweet media
English
0
0
0
175
Paweł Szulc
Paweł Szulc@EncodePanda·
Two months ago, I did a presentation "From Micrograd to coppergrad: Building Neural Networks and Backpropagation from Scratch in Rust" A bit of math, a bit of machine learning, a bit of Rust. Enjoy! youtube.com/watch?v=IeLcBX…
YouTube video
YouTube
English
0
3
42
2.7K
Paweł Szulc retweetledi
John A De Goes
John A De Goes@jdegoes·
Anthropic is deeply incompetent at building software that works reliably. Their users would be happier if they focused on the model and outsourced the tooling to engineers who go beyond 'vibe coding'.
English
33
14
336
16.2K
Paweł Szulc retweetledi
Mushtaq Bilal, PhD
Mushtaq Bilal, PhD@MushtaqBilalPhD·
Sci-Hub is an evil website that pirated 85M+ research papers and made them freely available And now they've added AI to their database to make Sci-Bot. It answers your questions using latest, full-text articles. But DO NOT use it. We should all try to make billion-dollar academic publishers richer. I'm putting the link below so you know how to avoid it.
English
832
8.8K
46.5K
5M
Paweł Szulc retweetledi
PagedOut
PagedOut@pagedout_zine·
Call For Pages is still open! We're calling all authors and artists who would like to be a part of Paged Out! Issue #9. Our email articles@pagedout.institute is waiting!
English
0
5
10
4.3K
John A De Goes
John A De Goes@jdegoes·
No paper is needed for this fact, it is self-evident to those paying attention. Yet my mentions are filled with people claiming LLMs are capable of de novo reasoning. They're not. But they are awfully good at convincing people they are.
Nav Toor@heynavtoor

🚨SHOCKING: Apple just proved that AI models cannot do math. Not advanced math. Grade school math. The kind a 10-year-old solves. And the way they proved it is devastating. Apple researchers took the most popular math benchmark in AI — GSM8K, a set of grade-school math problems — and made one change. They swapped the numbers. Same problem. Same logic. Same steps. Different numbers. Every model's performance dropped. Every single one. 25 state-of-the-art models tested. But that wasn't the real experiment. The real experiment broke everything. They added one sentence to a math problem. One sentence that is completely irrelevant to the answer. It has nothing to do with the math. A human would read it and ignore it instantly. Here's the actual example from the paper: "Oliver picks 44 kiwis on Friday. Then he picks 58 kiwis on Saturday. On Sunday, he picks double the number of kiwis he did on Friday, but five of them were a bit smaller than average. How many kiwis does Oliver have?" The correct answer is 190. The size of the kiwis has nothing to do with the count. A 10-year-old would ignore "five of them were a bit smaller" because it's obviously irrelevant. It doesn't change how many kiwis there are. But o1-mini, OpenAI's reasoning model, subtracted 5. It got 185. Llama did the same thing. Subtracted 5. Got 185. They didn't reason through the problem. They saw the number 5, saw a sentence that sounded like it mattered, and blindly turned it into a subtraction. The models do not understand what subtraction means. They see a pattern that looks like subtraction and apply it. That is all. Apple tested this across all models. They call the dataset "GSM-NoOp" — as in, the added clause is a no-operation. It does nothing. It changes nothing. The results are catastrophic. Phi-3-mini dropped over 65%. More than half of its "math ability" vanished from one irrelevant sentence. GPT-4o dropped from 94.9% to 63.1%. o1-mini dropped from 94.5% to 66.0%. o1-preview, OpenAI's most advanced reasoning model at the time, dropped from 92.7% to 77.4%. Even giving the models 8 examples of the exact same question beforehand, with the correct solution shown each time, barely helped. The models still fell for the irrelevant clause. This means it's not a prompting problem. It's not a context problem. It's structural. The Apple researchers also found that models convert words into math operations without understanding what those words mean. They see the word "discount" and multiply. They see a number near the word "smaller" and subtract. Regardless of whether it makes any sense. The paper's exact words: "current LLMs are not capable of genuine logical reasoning; instead, they attempt to replicate the reasoning steps observed in their training data." And: "LLMs likely perform a form of probabilistic pattern-matching and searching to find closest seen data during training without proper understanding of concepts." They also tested what happens when you increase the number of steps in a problem. Performance didn't just decrease. The rate of decrease accelerated. Adding two extra clauses to a problem dropped Gemma2-9b from 84.4% to 41.8%. Phi-3.5-mini from 87.6% to 44.8%. The more thinking required, the more the models collapse. A real reasoner would slow down and work through it. These models don't slow down. They pattern-match. And when the pattern becomes complex enough, they crash. This paper was published at ICLR 2025, one of the most prestigious AI conferences in the world. You are using AI to help you make financial decisions. To check legal documents. To solve problems at work. To help your children with homework. And Apple just proved that the AI is not thinking about any of it. It is pattern matching. And the moment something unexpected shows up in your question, it breaks. It does not tell you it broke. It just quietly gives you the wrong answer with full confidence.

English
30
4
65
10.1K
Paweł Szulc retweetledi
PagedOut
PagedOut@pagedout_zine·
Learning reverse engineering and hungry for some real-world tips and tricks? Check out this article by Amnesia ("Reverse Engineering Cryptography Code"). This is a solid overview with multiple approaches to the topic.
PagedOut tweet media
English
0
14
90
10.7K
Paweł Szulc retweetledi
Muhammad Ayan
Muhammad Ayan@socialwithaayan·
🚨 BREAKING: Someone just built the exact tool Andrej Karpathy said someone should build. 48 hours after Karpathy posted his LLM Knowledge Bases workflow, this showed up on GitHub. It's called Graphify. One command. Any folder. Full knowledge graph. Point it at any folder. Run /graphify inside Claude Code. Walk away. Here is what comes out the other side: -> A navigable knowledge graph of everything in that folder -> An Obsidian vault with backlinked articles -> A wiki that starts at index. md and maps every concept cluster -> Plain English Q&A over your entire codebase or research folder You can ask it things like: "What calls this function?" "What connects these two concepts?" "What are the most important nodes in this project?" No vector database. No setup. No config files. The token efficiency number is what got me: 71.5x fewer tokens per query compared to reading raw files. That is not a small improvement. That is a completely different paradigm for how AI agents reason over large codebases. What it supports: -> Code in 13 programming languages -> PDFs -> Images via Claude Vision -> Markdown files Install in one line: pip install graphify && graphify install Then type /graphify in Claude Code and point it at anything. Karpathy asked. Someone delivered in 48 hours. That is the pace of 2026. Open Source. Free.
Muhammad Ayan tweet media
English
276
1.4K
12.7K
955K