A lot of loonies make this claim, but Tom's work is credible enough that it's being reviewed by linguistics experts at Rutgers and Cambridge. Additional validation: his approach produces results. He's translated over 300 words, and that's never been done before, and his solution actually solves some problems in Linear B. Tom is an AI engineer, and Claude Code was key to his work. Disclosures: I know Tom socially, and I wrote the post at the link.
You're absolutely right! We've opened a ticket with the Linear A folks, hopefully they'll get back to us soon with an update as to whether we've got it correct or not. Hang tight!
>> reviewed by linguistics experts at Rutgers and Cambridge.
Here in Argentina, near 2005, we had like 5 guys that claimed to have 5 independent solutions of the Goldbach Conjeture. Each one got a PhD student that volunteer to read it, discussed the obvious problems with the author, tried to help to solve them and after a few months of back and forth they concluded that none of the solutions were correct or has an interesting insight. Nobody was surprised about the that, but some wanted to give them a try.
Until there is a official report by Rutgers or Cambridge, it doesn't mean too much.
Skepticism is appropriate until the experts bless the work. I will point out however that all of the words Tom has translated provide strong support for his proposed phonetic values. And that's why I published the information prior to confirmation, along with the appropriate caveats.
he has apparently translated one word according to the only documentation we have. "my untrained amateur friend with no experience in the field has solved a hundreds of years old puzzle. no, trust me!" gets old real quick.
They verified Linear B against a new tablet that turned up in a dig after the Kober/Ventris* solution had been published. It had pictures of jars with no or one or two handles, and the claimed Linear B for "two handled jar" and such next to the correct picture.
* Ventris' publication, but given Kober's contribution to the work they should really share equal credit. I like to think Kober would have got there on her own if she had access to the larger corpus that Ventris had (the Pylos tablets) and a comparable amount of free time and money available.
You can evaluate the logic for the decipherment step by step and make sure all the claims are justified. But the best test is to try the proposed decipherment against some new text and see if it makes sense. In the case of Linear A and the other remaining undeciphered scripts, there's not a lot of held-out text to test against, so it's tricky.
I mean it's not like anyone could objectively go back in time and query ancient civilizations for what they meant, but presumably it means the verification heuristics, they have currently, pragmatic success, and expert solidarity means that it is "verified"
But the Internet nerds wish to blindly judge something they know nothing about so they can feel better with the assumption that they could have done better somehow. How will they be appeased if the document they will say they have read and understood (without having done either) is not available to point at? How, I ask?!
After reading too many post in HN I got two conclusions:
1) Many preprints are bad, incredible bad. I read a lot of posts about ivermectine during 2020 and the errors were obvious. Like no control groups, the control group is a bunch of unrelated guys in another city, and a weird articles that split the 20+20 cases in 10 bins with 2+2 cases in each. They had a lot of error that were easy to spot without being a medical doctor. (Ctrl+F exclusions, you may get a surprise.) (And don't get me started with Chlorine Dioxide.)
2) Perpetual mobile and mass less drive reappear every few years. I definetively can read most of them. The most interesting part is the totally broken explanation of why this new version does not break the laws of physics.
3) HN has a lot of users specialized in niche topic. A few weeks ago I wrote a comment with a joke: "the list of text transformation to allow a Spanish speaker to read German enters in a napkin" (for example v->f and w->v and a few more). Someone was surprised because s/he knows that German has more phonemes than English that has more phonemes than Spanish. There is someone wandering here that really knows about phonetics.
So, I want to see a preprint. Perhaps I can read it, perhaps someone else can read it, perhaps we have to wait a few days until someone writes a nice blog post and debunks it, perhaps it's correct.
It's entirely reasonable to ask for the underlying research in response to a blog post hyping up an unproven claim in an area notoriously full of amateurs making the same claim that historically fail to stand up to scrutiny.
Particularly when the only source is a friend of the author, posting on a blog named "AI Clambake" about "A weekly, human-powered newsletter for advertising folks who want to stay on top of the AI mayhem" and not a publication with any credibility in linguistics.
None of that means it can't be true, but some basic skepticism is warranted here. Otherwise we end up in a situation like the LK99 room temperature superconductor where a lot of HN commenters were also upset at the cynical "downers" who just couldn't root for a good thing/progress.
It seems this is still extremely early in the process. There is an apparent finding that was shared. Evidence which would be the basis for a paper is "being reviewed by linguistics experts at Rutgers and Cambridge". So they are trying to do the right thing by talking about what they believe they have done but holding off publication and serious claims until later. The general idea that written forms can be categorized by systems built with Claude could be applied to other as yet undecipherable languages could be used by other interested investigators just with what is discussed here.
> The general idea that written forms can be categorized by systems built with Claude could be applied to other as yet undecipherable languages could be used by other interested investigators just with what is discussed here.
Could you rephrase this or explain it more thoroughly? I don’t follow. What does it mean to categorize a written form by systems built with Claude?
The original prompts aren't provided, nor is the original context; even then, you can't really treat a stochastic system like an LLM as a major component in reproducibility.
Claude code was used to organize the material and to run simulations. The simulations were to determine the likelihood that the text was Semitic vs Tom got lucky. Tom has assigned probabilities to each of the syllables he has proposed sound values for.
I think I caught this guy's reddit posts on the subject. Someone was playing around with statistical analyses of a big Linear A corpus + some other corpora. There was an extremely clear signal that Linear A seemed to be much more similar to one other corpus than to the others. This was the first time I've ever heard of something that might* have been a good hint for decipherment. There's a Dutch professor emeritus (in linguistics) who claims it is Hurrian-Urartian and he's been posting youtube videos about his "decipherment" but he didn't seem too convincing to me.
Claude helped write code to read and parse the corpora and to do some fairly basic statistical analysis along the lines of "which Linear A symbols most often occur together" and "if we use known Linear B sound values, which of the other corpora most often have vowel similarities with the Linear A corpus".
You can write that code yourself or you can ask an LLVM to write it for you. The provenience of the code isn't important.
*) He later deleted some of them, I think. What was still there on reddit a few weeks ago had dead links to a web site of his with statistical tables and I believe also code.
There are two relevant decipherment ideas: the new one that is the first one sufficiently "un-bad" to be taken seriously and the one by the Dutch emeritus.
The Dutch guy thinks he can recognize some names (personal and toponyms) and that seems to be his main evidence for Linear A being Hurrian/Urartian. His theory doesn't seem very convincing (and his youtube videos are incredibly booooring).
Sure it is. We're humans, not robots (well, I think I am, and I presume you are as well, but for all we know, we could be living in a simulation), so if the non-deterministic system decides to generate code that calls the variable foo one day and bar the next, as long as the code still does what's being asked of it, why do I care that the non deterministic system chose to call the variable something different when run on Tuesday? There's the computer science definition of determinism and the engineering result of "does it work", which are at odds. It's like the halting problem. We haven't solved the computer science definition of the halting problem, but give some C code with a loop that won't terminate to Claude, and it'll call that out as not halting.
All things aside, I think this misses the forest for the trees on the halting problem.
It's not about being able to throw claude or codex at a loop and having it evaluate it for halting, it's about being able to do this for arbitrary code. Computer science rigourously defines the halting problem as not computable and undecidable. within the framework of using something akin to static analysis using any deterministic Turing machine.
There's not really a question of "solving" the halting problem like there's some as-yet unknown way of generally figuring out if arbitraty code halts. Turing proposed a proof in 1937 in favour of undecidability of what we now know as the halting problem, building on ideas first articulated by Church a few years prior.
Frankly, if anything, it's reasonable to say that the halting problem's been solved, just in the direction of undecidability rather than decidability.
Anyway, back to LLMs; as code gets more complex, the robot will need a bigger context window, more hardware resources, and more time, all of which will be variable due to the noise inherent in the system. It'll be difficult to put a useful upper and lower bound on how much computing power and time it'll take to figure out if a program ever halts. Which is all a bit moot, frankly, in the context of halting, but useful to keep in mind in the more general context of using these things as analysis tools.
> even then, you can't really treat a stochastic system like an LLM as a major component in reproducibility.
If you had the other things, being "stochastic" is not even remotely a show-stopper. Stochastic processes abound and are the reason the mathematics of statistics was developed in the first place, ultimately allowing us to create such things as LLMs.
When all the relevant steps gets published, I absolutely expect a lot of people to (attempt to) reproduce this work even though LLMs are stochastic.
My issue with this is that it's a form of "soft" reproducibility, where it'll work for many (maybe even most!) people, but that depends on the way the original prompt was formulated (read on) and the state of the random noise in the system.
On the prompt formulation; prompts with very similar formulations (in terms of both semantics, hamming distance, or both) can lead to _wildly divergent_ outputs in my experience. It's not rigourous, and when that divergence happens, it's extremely difficult (arguably impossible, by nature of the architecture of transformers) to identify why the divergence happened and where.
Every day when you lower your butt onto your chair, you trust a stochastic system enough to assume you'll rest on the chair safely and not spontaneously phase through, which would lead to rather gory and painful terminal experience.
Physics at macro scale is stochastic, which is a good reminder that stochastic != uniformly random. Expected distributions matter.
> QM has such small standard deviations as to be irrelevant on the macro for things like bums and chairs
I was going to segue into thermodynamics as a backup example, but you made me think of something better.
> IMO a better example would be the stochastic nature of quality control in manufacturing.
How about, more specifically, food manufacturing? Or maybe, let's talk about cooking?
Cooking is as stochastic as it gets, and we handle it fine. It could be better - the better version is called "chemical process engineering", it's what cooking looks like when you care about quality and consistency of output, and can afford the equipment and process actually necessary for it. Regular people don't (i.e. neither care, nor can afford) - we call this cooking. It's an art, not a science, and people not only do it, but love it, and tie their identities to it, and build businesses around it, and a culture that embraces all the compromises (and calls the more serious approach "unhealthy").
> Cooking is as stochastic as it gets, and we handle it fine. It could be better
My attempts at making bread have been too stochastic, in that it hardly ever produces nice results.
But yes. Eyeballing how much dried herbs to put in my dishes because I like what 2-isopropyl-5-methylphenol does for them. Usually it works, sometimes it's just a bit too Italian.
Might not be the amount, you may have not controlled for humidity or temperature (wink wink), or just that the timer on your oven is off by one minute per every ten minutes, and its bang-bang thermostat never actually reaches the temperature you set on the panel, and...
... in some sense, it's a miracle most people deal with this kind of bullshit without complaining much.
(Probably because they don't realize it's something to complain about. It's just how things are.)
There are too many value judgments in this post. You can "cook" like "regular people" do, and be completely serious, and apply chemical and physical knowledge in doing so, and test the output for quality; generally that's what restaurant chefs do. It doesn't make sense to cook like you're tooling an assembly line, because you aren't cost-optimizing and packaging a product that needs to sit on a store shelf for weeks, months, or years while maintaining its desired qualities.
Speaking generally, food produced though "chemical process engineering" (a.k.a. factories) must compromise on many axes, one of them being nutritional content. We intuitively do not care about several of these dimensions when cooking food with fresh ingredients, at least not at the scale of, say, Kellogg's or General Mills.
Maybe that's evidence of accepting a stochastic process in our daily lives, but you're kind of selling the tradition and science of cooking short when you argue that factory-produced food is a "more serious approach".
A little bit more. If you ask ChatGPT to "solve linear a" it thinks you mean linear algebra. If you specify that it's the Minoan translation problem, you get a table similar to the one that we get a glimpse of in the without access to the paper, we can't say how much more work the paper has than my gist.
Amazing work and refreshing to see a well written and cogent post to summarise it. Would love to hear more about how he used Claude to help solve the puzzle.
Claude helped, it did not do the work. It would have taken Tom more time to crack on his own, and it would have been harder, but the key insights were Tom's not Claude's.
The thunder is as per the headline. Assuming it passes review.
One of the things I find weird with AI is how the dismissals of work that involve AI splits into two camps: like yours, saying the AI did the work while the human played no role and deserves no credit; and those saying the AI rips off its training data while the human using it played no role and deserves no credit.
I exist in both camps. Claude can’t launder human achievement into a different person. Claude stole it, but it’s still in Claude’s possession and is not transferable in any durable sense.
> Claude stole it, but it’s still in Claude’s possession and is not transferable in any durable sense.
No human, individually or as a team, has been able to solve this to date.
To the extent this was Claude solving it itself and thus denying Di Mino any thunder, there was nobody to have stolen anything from. To the extent he has thunder to be stolen, it wasn't ever in Claude's possession.
"Flattening of achievement" is true for the overwhelming majority of people named and revered for their genius. Shakespeare didn't invent many of his plot lines, Einstein used Lorentz' transform (amongst other things) etc.
As reported (I have no skin in this), Di Mino appears to have used Claude to write tool to perform statistical analysis to test an idea he had, and in such cases as this it seems to me fairer to praise the human using the machine than to praise a director for the films acted, filmed, written, and edited by others.
