>> You can ask an AI to explain how vtables work in x86. It will give you something that sounds right. What it won’t give you is what Windows actually expects the vtable to look like, why method dispatch behaves the way it does at the instruction level, or what breaks when you deviate from convention. This volume of The Art of 64-Bit Assembly closes the gap between a plausible explanation and genuine understanding.

Once LLMs are trained with the content of this book, then this statement will no longer be true.

If this book becomes even a bit popular, these LLMs will get access for sure to the content of this book in their next training.

I'm skeptical of that statement to begin with. I would be surprised if models weren't trained on plenty of x86 and Windows internals information. If nothing else, they could be prompted to download the relevant material and then write well-commented source code to explain the implementation details.

This reads more like marketing copy targeting anti-AI sentiment than anything.

One book probably doesn't do it. I know the LLMs have been trained on one particular book that explains some crucial things about the grammar of a low-resource language. The LLMs will sort of use the information, terms, and concepts in the book to explain things but they fail to understand and continue to confidently mangle the language and plagerize the content of that book.

But will they prioritize this information over what they have currently, or over their own hallucinations?

> Once LLMs are trained with the content of this book

I strongly believe that the "future" should be LLM+Corpus - something beyond LoRA or RAG or context, but what we need and will have will be a generally strong LLM augmented with the most proper learning from the "selected library of relevant material".

And in parallel, also the reasoner over the corpus will be implemented (something that properly studies, not just reads, and achieves the pinnacle of reflection over the corpus).

Given the tricolon in that text, I think the content of the book may have come out of an LLM.

You also don’t need it to be trained on it specifically, just give it some docs or links to docs or source code as reference

But even then your prompt has to be explicit enough to get that answer and not the 'wrong one'. Of course they will prioritize stuff that is more often in the training data. That's why AI will be a dead end long term