NJ Federal judge Julian Neals was caught using AI in legal rulings. Well at this point I must issue

Swan wrote:
Another supreme federal dipshit award

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judges-acknowledge-court-ruling-errors-tied-staffers-ai-use-after-grassley-inquiry





Here cums da judge

Swan wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judges-acknowledge-court-ruling-errors-tied-staffers-ai-use-after-grassley-inquiry

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judges-acknowledge-court-ruling-errors-tied-staffers-ai-use-after-grassley-inquiry

I read the whole article and I don't see it cited what the errors were...

If they can't even elaborate about the actual problem, then methinks the judges are just upset their jobs can be replaced by chat bots.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judges-acknowledge-court-ruling-errors-tied-staffers-ai-use-after-grassley-inquiry

I read the whole article and I don't see it cited what the errors were...

If they can't even elaborate about the actual problem, then methinks the judges are just upset their jobs can be replaced by chat bots.

Then watch the movie

https://i.ytimg.com/an_webp/cDzEP0yB-Kw/mqdefault_6s.webp?du=3000&sqp=CMyphMgG&rs=AOn4CLApy5cyj7VOa4C3ZZyhqz8Ugt-KIw

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/judges-called-out-for-nonfactual-rulings-admit-to-use-of-ai

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judges-acknowledge-court-ruling-errors-tied-staffers-ai-use-after-grassley-inquiry

I read the whole article and I don't see it cited what the errors were...

If they can't even elaborate about the actual problem, then methinks the judges are just upset their jobs can be replaced by chat bots.

Then watch the movie

https://i.ytimg.com/an_webp/cDzEP0yB-Kw/mqdefault_6s.webp?du=3000&sqp=CMyphMgG&rs=AOn4CLApy5cyj7VOa4C3ZZyhqz8Ugt-KIw

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/judges-called-out-for-nonfactual-rulings-admit-to-use-of-ai

They still don't say anything about what the apparently erroneous citations are. At worst, seems like a clerical error, doesn't change any judgment.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judges-acknowledge-court-ruling-errors-tied-staffers-ai-use-after-grassley-inquiry

I read the whole article and I don't see it cited what the errors were...

If they can't even elaborate about the actual problem, then methinks the judges are just upset their jobs can be replaced by chat bots.

Then watch the movie

https://i.ytimg.com/an_webp/cDzEP0yB-Kw/mqdefault_6s.webp?du=3000&sqp=CMyphMgG&rs=AOn4CLApy5cyj7VOa4C3ZZyhqz8Ugt-KIw

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/judges-called-out-for-nonfactual-rulings-admit-to-use-of-ai

They still don't say anything about what the apparently erroneous citations are. At worst, seems like a clerical error, doesn't change any judgment.

Ai is fantasy, you seriously do not see the harm in a judge citing a fictitious case? Sure you do, but at this juncture a professional circus clown has a more respectable profession than you do and everyone knows it. So get treated for your denial

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judges-acknowledge-court-ruling-errors-tied-staffers-ai-use-after-grassley-inquiry

I read the whole article and I don't see it cited what the errors were...

If they can't even elaborate about the actual problem, then methinks the judges are just upset their jobs can be replaced by chat bots.

Then watch the movie

https://i.ytimg.com/an_webp/cDzEP0yB-Kw/mqdefault_6s.webp?du=3000&sqp=CMyphMgG&rs=AOn4CLApy5cyj7VOa4C3ZZyhqz8Ugt-KIw

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/judges-called-out-for-nonfactual-rulings-admit-to-use-of-ai

They still don't say anything about what the apparently erroneous citations are. At worst, seems like a clerical error, doesn't change any judgment.

Ai is fantasy, you seriously do not see the harm in a judge citing a fictitious case? Sure you do, but at this juncture a professional circus clown has a more respectable profession than you do and everyone knows it. So get treated for your denial

Always verify AI outputs with reliable databases (Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER).

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judges-acknowledge-court-ruling-errors-tied-staffers-ai-use-after-grassley-inquiry

I read the whole article and I don't see it cited what the errors were...

If they can't even elaborate about the actual problem, then methinks the judges are just upset their jobs can be replaced by chat bots.

Then watch the movie

https://i.ytimg.com/an_webp/cDzEP0yB-Kw/mqdefault_6s.webp?du=3000&sqp=CMyphMgG&rs=AOn4CLApy5cyj7VOa4C3ZZyhqz8Ugt-KIw

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/judges-called-out-for-nonfactual-rulings-admit-to-use-of-ai

They still don't say anything about what the apparently erroneous citations are. At worst, seems like a clerical error, doesn't change any judgment.

Ai is fantasy, you seriously do not see the harm in a judge citing a fictitious case? Sure you do, but at this juncture a professional circus clown has a more respectable profession than you do and everyone knows it. So get treated for your denial

Always verify AI outputs with reliable databases (Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER).

Chat gpt also makes up stuff as it goes. Ai can also write the music and lyrics for a song, then create fictional singers and a voice in about 4 seconds. LOL it also does the same thing with court cases in order to create a seemingly logical reason to convict.

This simpleton NJ judge retracted her opinions because they were based in part upon ai created fiction, in doing so she admitted how dumb she was. Yet you claim that the judge was wrong for retracting her nonsense because you want everyone to live in the created delusion of ai that suits your chosen slave management ideology. Judges are the only thing dumber than a typical cop.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judges-acknowledge-court-ruling-errors-tied-staffers-ai-use-after-grassley-inquiry

I read the whole article and I don't see it cited what the errors were...

If they can't even elaborate about the actual problem, then methinks the judges are just upset their jobs can be replaced by chat bots.

Then watch the movie

https://i.ytimg.com/an_webp/cDzEP0yB-Kw/mqdefault_6s.webp?du=3000&sqp=CMyphMgG&rs=AOn4CLApy5cyj7VOa4C3ZZyhqz8Ugt-KIw

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/judges-called-out-for-nonfactual-rulings-admit-to-use-of-ai

They still don't say anything about what the apparently erroneous citations are. At worst, seems like a clerical error, doesn't change any judgment.

Ai is fantasy, you seriously do not see the harm in a judge citing a fictitious case? Sure you do, but at this juncture a professional circus clown has a more respectable profession than you do and everyone knows it. So get treated for your denial

Always verify AI outputs with reliable databases (Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER).

Chat gpt also makes up stuff as it goes. Ai can also write the music and lyrics for a song, then create fictional singers and a voice in about 4 seconds. LOL it also does the same thing with court cases in order to create a seemingly logical reason to convict.

This simpleton NJ judge retracted her opinions because they were based in part upon ai created fiction, in doing so she admitted how dumb she was. Yet you claim that the judge was wrong for retracting her nonsense because you want everyone to live in the created delusion of ai that suits your chosen slave management ideology. Judges are the only thing dumber than a typical cop.

Judge Henry T. Wingate was caught peddling AI slop. What did he do? Blamed it on the intern. Then what did the intern do? Blamed it on AI.

See they don't take accountability. So it's no surprise they wouldn't verify their work.

I think AI can improve and accelerate output, but it learns from its users, not the other way around.

And I like the idea that it may have the potential to level the competitive field.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judges-acknowledge-court-ruling-errors-tied-staffers-ai-use-after-grassley-inquiry

I read the whole article and I don't see it cited what the errors were...

If they can't even elaborate about the actual problem, then methinks the judges are just upset their jobs can be replaced by chat bots.

Then watch the movie

https://i.ytimg.com/an_webp/cDzEP0yB-Kw/mqdefault_6s.webp?du=3000&sqp=CMyphMgG&rs=AOn4CLApy5cyj7VOa4C3ZZyhqz8Ugt-KIw

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/judges-called-out-for-nonfactual-rulings-admit-to-use-of-ai

They still don't say anything about what the apparently erroneous citations are. At worst, seems like a clerical error, doesn't change any judgment.

Ai is fantasy, you seriously do not see the harm in a judge citing a fictitious case? Sure you do, but at this juncture a professional circus clown has a more respectable profession than you do and everyone knows it. So get treated for your denial

Always verify AI outputs with reliable databases (Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER).

Chat gpt also makes up stuff as it goes. Ai can also write the music and lyrics for a song, then create fictional singers and a voice in about 4 seconds. LOL it also does the same thing with court cases in order to create a seemingly logical reason to convict.

This simpleton NJ judge retracted her opinions because they were based in part upon ai created fiction, in doing so she admitted how dumb she was. Yet you claim that the judge was wrong for retracting her nonsense because you want everyone to live in the created delusion of ai that suits your chosen slave management ideology. Judges are the only thing dumber than a typical cop.

Judge Henry T. Wingate was caught peddling AI slop. What did he do? Blamed it on the intern. Then what did the intern do? Blamed it on AI.

See they don't take accountability. So it's no surprise they wouldn't verify their work.

I think AI can improve and accelerate output, but it learns from its users, not the other way around.

And I like the idea that it may have the potential to level the competitive field.

LOL you are lost in space. Ai is now creating its own codes that humans cannot read, so wake up kid.

https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/10/ai-chatbots-can-read-and-write-invisible-text-creating-an-ideal-covert-channel/

Invisible text that AI chatbots understand and humans can't? Yep, it's a thing.

What if there was a way to sneak malicious instructions into Claude, Copilot, or other top-name AI chatbots and get confidential data out of them by using characters large language models can recognize and their human users can't? As it turns out, there was—and in some cases still is.

The invisible characters, the result of a quirk in the Unicode text encoding standard, create an ideal covert channel that can make it easier for attackers to conceal malicious payloads fed into an LLM. The hidden text can similarly obfuscate the exfiltration of passwords, financial information, or other secrets out of the same AI-powered bots. Because the hidden text can be combined with normal text, users can unwittingly paste it into prompts. The secret content can also be appended to visible text in chatbot output.

The result is a steganographic framework built into the most widely used text encoding channel.

"Mind-blowing"
"The fact that GPT 4.0 and Claude Opus were able to really understand those invisible tags was really mind-blowing to me and made the whole AI security space much more interesting," Joseph Thacker, an independent researcher and AI engineer at Appomni, said in an interview. "The idea that they can be completely invisible in all browsers but still readable by large language models makes [attacks] much more feasible in just about every area."

Again the only thing dumber than a cop, is a judge, and a judge using fake ai generated cases to apply case law, really needs to snort some extra meth for the Gipper

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judges-acknowledge-court-ruling-errors-tied-staffers-ai-use-after-grassley-inquiry

I read the whole article and I don't see it cited what the errors were...

If they can't even elaborate about the actual problem, then methinks the judges are just upset their jobs can be replaced by chat bots.

Then watch the movie

https://i.ytimg.com/an_webp/cDzEP0yB-Kw/mqdefault_6s.webp?du=3000&sqp=CMyphMgG&rs=AOn4CLApy5cyj7VOa4C3ZZyhqz8Ugt-KIw

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/judges-called-out-for-nonfactual-rulings-admit-to-use-of-ai

They still don't say anything about what the apparently erroneous citations are. At worst, seems like a clerical error, doesn't change any judgment.

Ai is fantasy, you seriously do not see the harm in a judge citing a fictitious case? Sure you do, but at this juncture a professional circus clown has a more respectable profession than you do and everyone knows it. So get treated for your denial

Always verify AI outputs with reliable databases (Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER).

Chat gpt also makes up stuff as it goes. Ai can also write the music and lyrics for a song, then create fictional singers and a voice in about 4 seconds. LOL it also does the same thing with court cases in order to create a seemingly logical reason to convict.

This simpleton NJ judge retracted her opinions because they were based in part upon ai created fiction, in doing so she admitted how dumb she was. Yet you claim that the judge was wrong for retracting her nonsense because you want everyone to live in the created delusion of ai that suits your chosen slave management ideology. Judges are the only thing dumber than a typical cop.

Judge Henry T. Wingate was caught peddling AI slop. What did he do? Blamed it on the intern. Then what did the intern do? Blamed it on AI.

See they don't take accountability. So it's no surprise they wouldn't verify their work.

I think AI can improve and accelerate output, but it learns from its users, not the other way around.

And I like the idea that it may have the potential to level the competitive field.

LOL you are lost in space. Ai is now creating its own codes that humans cannot read, so wake up kid.

https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/10/ai-chatbots-can-read-and-write-invisible-text-creating-an-ideal-covert-channel/

Invisible text that AI chatbots understand and humans can't? Yep, it's a thing.

What if there was a way to sneak malicious instructions into Claude, Copilot, or other top-name AI chatbots and get confidential data out of them by using characters large language models can recognize and their human users can't? As it turns out, there was—and in some cases still is.

The invisible characters, the result of a quirk in the Unicode text encoding standard, create an ideal covert channel that can make it easier for attackers to conceal malicious payloads fed into an LLM. The hidden text can similarly obfuscate the exfiltration of passwords, financial information, or other secrets out of the same AI-powered bots. Because the hidden text can be combined with normal text, users can unwittingly paste it into prompts. The secret content can also be appended to visible text in chatbot output.

The result is a steganographic framework built into the most widely used text encoding channel.

"Mind-blowing"
"The fact that GPT 4.0 and Claude Opus were able to really understand those invisible tags was really mind-blowing to me and made the whole AI security space much more interesting," Joseph Thacker, an independent researcher and AI engineer at Appomni, said in an interview. "The idea that they can be completely invisible in all browsers but still readable by large language models makes [attacks] much more feasible in just about every area."

Again the only thing dumber than a cop, is a judge, and a judge using fake ai generated cases to apply case law, really needs to snort some extra meth for the Gipper

This story is making these judges look worse than AI. All they had to do was verify the case citations in a legal database.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judges-acknowledge-court-ruling-errors-tied-staffers-ai-use-after-grassley-inquiry

I read the whole article and I don't see it cited what the errors were...

If they can't even elaborate about the actual problem, then methinks the judges are just upset their jobs can be replaced by chat bots.

Then watch the movie

https://i.ytimg.com/an_webp/cDzEP0yB-Kw/mqdefault_6s.webp?du=3000&sqp=CMyphMgG&rs=AOn4CLApy5cyj7VOa4C3ZZyhqz8Ugt-KIw

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/judges-called-out-for-nonfactual-rulings-admit-to-use-of-ai

They still don't say anything about what the apparently erroneous citations are. At worst, seems like a clerical error, doesn't change any judgment.

Ai is fantasy, you seriously do not see the harm in a judge citing a fictitious case? Sure you do, but at this juncture a professional circus clown has a more respectable profession than you do and everyone knows it. So get treated for your denial

Always verify AI outputs with reliable databases (Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER).

Chat gpt also makes up stuff as it goes. Ai can also write the music and lyrics for a song, then create fictional singers and a voice in about 4 seconds. LOL it also does the same thing with court cases in order to create a seemingly logical reason to convict.

This simpleton NJ judge retracted her opinions because they were based in part upon ai created fiction, in doing so she admitted how dumb she was. Yet you claim that the judge was wrong for retracting her nonsense because you want everyone to live in the created delusion of ai that suits your chosen slave management ideology. Judges are the only thing dumber than a typical cop.

Judge Henry T. Wingate was caught peddling AI slop. What did he do? Blamed it on the intern. Then what did the intern do? Blamed it on AI.

See they don't take accountability. So it's no surprise they wouldn't verify their work.

I think AI can improve and accelerate output, but it learns from its users, not the other way around.

And I like the idea that it may have the potential to level the competitive field.

LOL you are lost in space. Ai is now creating its own codes that humans cannot read, so wake up kid.

https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/10/ai-chatbots-can-read-and-write-invisible-text-creating-an-ideal-covert-channel/

Invisible text that AI chatbots understand and humans can't? Yep, it's a thing.

What if there was a way to sneak malicious instructions into Claude, Copilot, or other top-name AI chatbots and get confidential data out of them by using characters large language models can recognize and their human users can't? As it turns out, there was—and in some cases still is.

The invisible characters, the result of a quirk in the Unicode text encoding standard, create an ideal covert channel that can make it easier for attackers to conceal malicious payloads fed into an LLM. The hidden text can similarly obfuscate the exfiltration of passwords, financial information, or other secrets out of the same AI-powered bots. Because the hidden text can be combined with normal text, users can unwittingly paste it into prompts. The secret content can also be appended to visible text in chatbot output.

The result is a steganographic framework built into the most widely used text encoding channel.

"Mind-blowing"
"The fact that GPT 4.0 and Claude Opus were able to really understand those invisible tags was really mind-blowing to me and made the whole AI security space much more interesting," Joseph Thacker, an independent researcher and AI engineer at Appomni, said in an interview. "The idea that they can be completely invisible in all browsers but still readable by large language models makes [attacks] much more feasible in just about every area."

Again the only thing dumber than a cop, is a judge, and a judge using fake ai generated cases to apply case law, really needs to snort some extra meth for the Gipper

This story is making these judges look worse than AI. All they had to do was verify the case citations in a legal database.

Glad that you agree that all the judges had to do was check, but they didn't. Fat stupid and lazy is no way to go thru life, unless you are a judge that is

MIT just exposed every top AI model and it's not pretty.

They built a new test called WorldTest to see if AI actually understands the world... and the results are brutal.

It doesn't just check how well a model predicts the next frame or maximizes reward it tests whether it can build an internal model of reality and use it to handle new situations.

They built AutumnBench 43 interactive worlds, 129 tasks where AIs must:

* Predict hidden parts of the world (masked-frame prediction)
* Plan sequences of actions to reach a goal
* Detect when the environment's rules suddenly change

Then they tested 517 humans vs. Claude, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and o3.

Humans crushed every model. Even massive compute scaling barely helped.

The takeaway is wild.. today's AIs don't understand environments; they just pattern-match inside them.

They don't explore strategically, revise beliefs, or run experiments like humans do.

WorldTest might be the first benchmark that actually measures understanding, not memorization.

The gap it reveals isn't small it's the next grand challenge in AI cognition.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judges-acknowledge-court-ruling-errors-tied-staffers-ai-use-after-grassley-inquiry

I read the whole article and I don't see it cited what the errors were...

If they can't even elaborate about the actual problem, then methinks the judges are just upset their jobs can be replaced by chat bots.

Then watch the movie

https://i.ytimg.com/an_webp/cDzEP0yB-Kw/mqdefault_6s.webp?du=3000&sqp=CMyphMgG&rs=AOn4CLApy5cyj7VOa4C3ZZyhqz8Ugt-KIw

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/judges-called-out-for-nonfactual-rulings-admit-to-use-of-ai

They still don't say anything about what the apparently erroneous citations are. At worst, seems like a clerical error, doesn't change any judgment.

Ai is fantasy, you seriously do not see the harm in a judge citing a fictitious case? Sure you do, but at this juncture a professional circus clown has a more respectable profession than you do and everyone knows it. So get treated for your denial

Always verify AI outputs with reliable databases (Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER).

Chat gpt also makes up stuff as it goes. Ai can also write the music and lyrics for a song, then create fictional singers and a voice in about 4 seconds. LOL it also does the same thing with court cases in order to create a seemingly logical reason to convict.

This simpleton NJ judge retracted her opinions because they were based in part upon ai created fiction, in doing so she admitted how dumb she was. Yet you claim that the judge was wrong for retracting her nonsense because you want everyone to live in the created delusion of ai that suits your chosen slave management ideology. Judges are the only thing dumber than a typical cop.

Judge Henry T. Wingate was caught peddling AI slop. What did he do? Blamed it on the intern. Then what did the intern do? Blamed it on AI.

See they don't take accountability. So it's no surprise they wouldn't verify their work.

I think AI can improve and accelerate output, but it learns from its users, not the other way around.

And I like the idea that it may have the potential to level the competitive field.

LOL you are lost in space. Ai is now creating its own codes that humans cannot read, so wake up kid.

https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/10/ai-chatbots-can-read-and-write-invisible-text-creating-an-ideal-covert-channel/

Invisible text that AI chatbots understand and humans can't? Yep, it's a thing.

What if there was a way to sneak malicious instructions into Claude, Copilot, or other top-name AI chatbots and get confidential data out of them by using characters large language models can recognize and their human users can't? As it turns out, there was—and in some cases still is.

The invisible characters, the result of a quirk in the Unicode text encoding standard, create an ideal covert channel that can make it easier for attackers to conceal malicious payloads fed into an LLM. The hidden text can similarly obfuscate the exfiltration of passwords, financial information, or other secrets out of the same AI-powered bots. Because the hidden text can be combined with normal text, users can unwittingly paste it into prompts. The secret content can also be appended to visible text in chatbot output.

The result is a steganographic framework built into the most widely used text encoding channel.

"Mind-blowing"
"The fact that GPT 4.0 and Claude Opus were able to really understand those invisible tags was really mind-blowing to me and made the whole AI security space much more interesting," Joseph Thacker, an independent researcher and AI engineer at Appomni, said in an interview. "The idea that they can be completely invisible in all browsers but still readable by large language models makes [attacks] much more feasible in just about every area."

Again the only thing dumber than a cop, is a judge, and a judge using fake ai generated cases to apply case law, really needs to snort some extra meth for the Gipper

This story is making these judges look worse than AI. All they had to do was verify the case citations in a legal database.

Glad that you agree that all the judges had to do was check, but they didn't. Fat stupid and lazy is no way to go thru life, unless you are a judge that is

I saw the post below today, and thought it should be considered, in case expectation of AI's understanding ability need be brought down to Earth.

MIT just exposed every top AI model and it's not pretty.

They built a new test called WorldTest to see if AI actually understands the world... and the results are brutal.

It doesn't just check how well a model predicts the next frame or maximizes reward it tests whether it can build an internal model of reality and use it to handle new situations.

They built AutumnBench 43 interactive worlds, 129 tasks where AIs must:

* Predict hidden parts of the world (masked-frame prediction)
* Plan sequences of actions to reach a goal
* Detect when the environment's rules suddenly change

Then they tested 517 humans vs. Claude, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and o3.

Humans crushed every model. Even massive compute scaling barely helped.

The takeaway is wild.. today's AIs don't understand environments; they just pattern-match inside them.

They don't explore strategically, revise beliefs, or run experiments like humans do.

WorldTest might be the first benchmark that actually measures understanding, not memorization.

The gap it reveals isn't small it's the next grand challenge in AI cognition.