The problem is stated clearly enough that humans that we ask the question of will sooner or later see that there is an optimum and that that optimum relies on understanding.

And no, the problem is not 'not clearly stated'. It is complete as it is and you are wrong about your guess.

And if machines and people think this is related to weight lifting then they're free to ask follow up questions. But even in the weight lifting case the answer is the same.

▲

red75prime a day ago | parent [-]

Illusion of transparency. You are imagining yourself asking this question, while standing in the gym and looking at the bar (or something like this). I, for example, have no idea how the weights are attached and which removal actions are allowed.

Yeah, LLMs have a tendency to run with some interpretation of a question without asking follow-up questions. Probably, it's a consequence of RLHFing them in that way.

▲

jacquesm a day ago | parent [-]

And none of those details matter to solve the problem correctly. I'm purposefully not putting any answers here because I want to see if future generations of these tools suddenly see the non-obvious solution. But you are right about the fact that the details matter, one detail is mentioned very explicitly that holds the key.

If you do solve it don't post the answer.

▲

Mawr a day ago | parent [-]

Sure they, do, the problem makes no sense as stated. The solution to the stated problem is to remove all weights all at once, solved. Or even two at a time, opposite the centre of gravity. Solved, but not what you're asking I assume?

You didn't even label your ASCII art, so I've no clue what you mean, are the bars at the end the supports or weights? Can I only remove one weight at a time? Initially I assumed you mean a weightlifting bar the weights on which can only be removed from its ends. Is that the case or what? What's the double slash in the middle?

Also: "what order and/or arrangement or of removing the weights" this isn't even correct English. Arrangement of removing the weights? State the problem clearly, from first principles, like you were talking to a 5 year old.

The sibling comment is correct, you're clearly picturing something in your mind that you're failing to properly describe. It seems obvious to you, but it's not.

▲

jacquesm 21 hours ago | parent [-]

And yet, two people have solved it independently, so apparently it is adequately specified for some.

	▲	jiggawatts 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		“Luck is not a strategy.” I can successfully interpret total gibberish sometimes, but that’s not a robust approach even with humans let alone machines. People have wildly different experiences utilising AI because of their own idiosyncrasies more than issues with the tools themselves. It was pointed out by multiple groups (such as Anthropic) that their tools do a lot better with well organised codebases that are liberally commented. I’ve worked on codebases where the AIs are just… lost. So are people! Sure, some people can navigate the spaghetti… sometimes… but the success rate of changes is much lower. Occasional success is not proof of correctness of approach. Consistent success is.