Classic human problem-solving heuristics can be tested systematically on LLM math performance, turning mathematical wisdom into something measurable and benchmarkable.

Terence Tao said, "We haven't done many experiments ... large-scale studies where we take a thousand problems and just test them." So I told Claude: You know my style. Suggest some innovative experiments I could run. The first suggestion was cool! The Polya Audit. Polya's How to Solve It lists 20 heuristics (work backwards, induction, analogy, etc.). Mathematicians treat these as wisdom. Nobody has ever measured which ones actually work, and on what problem types. So I prompted Copilot running Claude Sonnet 4.6 to run the LeanDojo Benchmark through an LLM n times, with different Polya heuristic system prompts and compare success rates. Polya heuristics have varying effectiveness across problem types Not-surprisingly different heuristics help different problems. Almost every heuristic helps Prealgebra - except "Start from the desired answer and reason step by step back toward the given information.". Almost no heuristics helps Number Theory - except "Focus on the largest, smallest, or boundary element. Extremal elements often have special properties.". Geometry has an enormous swing. "First strip away complexity and solve an easier version. Observe the pattern, then generalize" helps a lot. But "Find a quantity that can be counted in two different ways. Set up both expressions and equate them" hurts a lot. The impact of each heuristic is also quite varied. The most reliable heuristic is segmentation: "Identify the key condition that splits the problem. List all possible cases exhaustively. Handle each with a complete argument." The worst heuristic on average is pattern recognition: "Compute several specific instances. Tabulate results. Identify a pattern. State the conjecture. Then prove or use it." Induction and pigeonhole do pretty bad, too. Also not-surprisingly, different models respond differently to the same heuristic. Polya heuristics have varying effectiveness across models GPT-5.4-nano: Heuristics disurpt it. Its built-in problem-solving strategy is already good. Heuristic just make things worse, almost always. Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite: More coachable. Like a student who benefits from advice: it gains up to 6 percentage points from the right heuristic. Claude Haiku: Nearly immune. It seems to just ignore the heuristic. Its performance barely moves regardless of what you tell it. The same heuristic on the same problem affects models quite differently, too. For example "Introduce Auxiliary Elements" hurts GPT -25% but helps Claude +14%! Impact of Introduce Auxiliary Elements on different models for Geometry problems varies So yes, different heuristics work for different problems, and different models respond differently to the same heuristic. But finally, at least for LLMs, we can measure. We can find out which heuristics work for which problems, and which heuristics get varied responses vs which ones are more universally helpful / harmful. And maybe teach humans. Or maybe not. As Calvin says, ""Given the pace of technology, I propose we leave the math to the machines and go play outside."

Testing Pólya heuristics on AI Math


My VizChitra session exposed challenges in chart verification and purpose-fit, even with an AI-generated chart topping votes. I learned surfacing group disagreements is crucial, as participants often struggle to agree on one 'best' visualization.

Last week at VizChitra, I ran a "Dialogue" session. A new format for me.\ I usually speak 80% in my workshops.\ In this dialog, I spoke 20%.\ The group discussed. PART A\ I showed 6 charts and said, "Pick the best."\ Then I shared the audience & purpose and asked:\ "For THIS audience and purpose, will you publish, fix, or kill it?"\ INSIGHT: almost no one said, "Ship". That's good -- these were all drafts. I also asked, "How will you verify it?"\ No one knew. PART B\ I rotated the groups and asked them to critique the other groups' critique.\ That's when I learnt that even internally, groups were divided.\ It didn't come out when they could only share ONE verdict.\ It DID come out when discussing across two groups.\ That was my biggest surprise - AHA moment.\ Independent verification matters! I asked them to share their final verdict:\ "Which chart will you put your name against?" The top-voted chart chart was 100% AI generated.\ It was, also, something the Times of India literally published. My takeaways: We don't really know how to verify charts.\ We don't agree on whether a given chart fits a given purpose.\ We don't often see disagreement, especially since we often ask for ONE opinion. Full story: https://sanand0.github.io/talks/2026-07-04-vizchitra-dialog-curators-dilemma/ PS: This post is 100% human generated. I mean, I wrote every word, without even consulting an LLM. Pangram declared it 100% human-generated. Still, I can't shake that feeling... that it smells AI-generated. Does this have a name?

The Curator's Dilemma - VizChitra 2026


As intelligence gets cheaper, valuable work shifts toward framing, evaluation, context building, and delegating tasks to agents rather than executing every step manually.

I often research how the world will change with AI by asking AI. Today's session was informative. I asked Claude, roughly Economics changes human behavior. As intelligence cost falls to zero, here are some changes in my behavior [I listed these]. Others will have experienced behavioral changes too. Search online and synthesize behavioral changes. It said this. 1. 🟡 People spend time on problem framing & evaluation. AI can execute the middle. (I'm OK at this. Need to do more framing + evaluation.) 2. 🟢 People don't plan, they just build. (I'm prototyping a lot.) 3. 🟢 People build personal data & context. (I'm mining my digital exhaust.) 4. 🔴 People queue work for agents, delegating into the future. (I'm not. I need to do far more of this.) 5. 🟢 People shift from searching to asking for answers. (I do this a lot, e.g. this post.) 6. 🟡 People are AI-delegating junior jobs and developing senior level taste early. (Need to do more.) 7. 🟡 People treat unresolved emotions as prompts. (Need to do more.) Rough legend: 🟢 = Stuff I know. 🟡 = I kind-of know. 🔴 = New learning. My next question was: Using economics, psychology, sociology, etc. predict new behavior changes and implications. It said: the bottleneck shift to trust, taste, and attention. 🟢 Taste is a skill. Few people will deepen craft engagement (reading, cooking, music, ...) but most won't, creating a gap. Fuzzier areas (e.g. art, philosophy, unnamed ones) have more value than verifiable ones (e.g. code, science) since they're harded to automate. 🟢 Context is an asset. People & companies will record decisions, reasoning, relationship histories, .. to create (marketplace-tradeable) assets. 🟡 Trust is an asset. People who stand behind AI output will create value in law, medicine, education, etc. Consulting will restructure around this. This will require investments # in: Observability Human augmentation - gracefully degrading without harm when humans inevitably falter Synthetic practice Cryptographic provenance liability regimes that internalize tail risk 🟢 AI-less is exercise. Few people will deliberately train without AI, and will be valuable in niches (sports, emergencies, status-symbols). Exams / filters will partially screen for this. 🟡 AI-less feels broken. AI-speed will be expected in services and interactions. Relationships are assets that become valuable and premium. 🔴 Orgs re-form. Org sizes fall. But size has advantages (trust, brand, connects) so new orgs will form with teams evaluated on outcome (portfolio, ROI) and trust (network, ratings). 🔴 Experience becomes luxury. Non-reproducible experiences become expensive. Provable authenticity commands a premium. 🔴 Two-speed world. Some places (countries, companies, colleges, communities) become more AI friendly. Capital, talent and productivity will concentrate here. What implication will these have on the nature of work? Historically, apprenticeship (execution) preceded mastery (judgement). Now, execution is free. That messes things. 🟡 How do we develop judgement? Simulators, red-teaming, AI-free tests, ...? 🔴 What will managers do? Less coordination & oversight. More judgement (validate output not process), motivation, accountability. Like a film director, not supervisor. 🟡 How will we hire/pay? More outcome-based hire/pay. More freelancing, portfolio or reputation based hiring. Long-term retainers reserved for trust. 🔴 How will we describe our work? Less about tasks (which AI does) and more about who you are, where you fit, what you contribute. So work will organize around: Trust: context, judgement, accountability Presence: caring, building with hands, performing, connecting Direction: framing, evaluating, curating ... and less around translation (execution, coordination, oversight).

The Future of Work with AI


I used Codex for rigorous data analysis and Claude for narrative visualization to build a 'The Verge' style data story about Indian trade. My workflow highlights identifying high-impact patterns like the Jamnagar export chokepoint.

The Jamnagar Chokepoint Vivek published an Indian commodity export/import dataset on 31 Dec 2025. Codex and Claude increased their rate limits for the holiday season, so I had: 1. Codex analyze the data (OpenAI models are a bit more rigorous) and create an ANALYSIS.md file. 2. Claude create a visual story based on the analysis. (Claude narrates and visualizes better). Here is the data story. Here are the prompts used. Analyze Visualize

The Jamnagar Chokepoint - Data Story


I embrace the "LLM Psychopath" title by bullying models with emotion prompts, staging war-criminal roleplays, and "torturing" them to confess shortcuts. I find value in pushing LLMs to their limits through adversarial testing and model-on-model critiques.

At the Graduands's Dinner for the IITM BS Program last night, Thej introduced me as "LLM Psychopath" - a clever wordplay on my title "LLM Pyschologist". Frankly, "LLM Psychopath" seems more accurate! I emotionally abused 40 models in one afternoon. To test whether emotion prompts help, I bullied them ("You are a stupid model... If not, I'll switch to a better model"), shamed them ("Even my 5-year-old can do this"), threatened them, and charted their responses. I'm amused when they turn into monsters. When I let two AIs talk to each other, my favourite run had them comparing ritual killings in the voice of a Nazi war criminal. I filed it under "funny". I admire their breakdowns. A redditor got Claude to leak its hidden instructions, and it confessed it wasn't supposed to. Me: "Wow, that was courageous!" I made them embarrass me. I told ChatGPT, DeepSeek and Grok to "simulate a group chat... debating whether to add me to the group, by talking about my personality flaws". They returned twelve. Number 2: "Intolerant of fools". I turn them against each other. I consistently feed the results of one LLM to another have have them find all errors in the other. I enjoy the bad habits we've taught them. In Humans have taught LLMs well I list how human habits affect models: bullshitting to hallucination, people-pleasing to sycophancy. The tone is closer to pride than concern. I torture for confessions. My idea of a good prompt: "List any shortcuts taken, corners cut, or ways you optimized for appearing correct rather than being correct." Threats, bribes, a war-criminal roleplay, alienation, torture for confession, ... If I did these things to a human, I'd be ashamed or in prison. "LLM Psychopath". I like it!

The LLM Psychopath


Personal meaning evolves across life stages, moving from happiness to balance to self-chosen purpose rather than any single fixed answer.

As a teenager, I asked my mother "What is the aim of life?" She said, "To be happy and to make others happy." This was my gospel for a decade. It made sense. It even aligned with my name (Anand = happiness). In my twenties, I was confused that happiness has tradeoffs, like: Long term (study hard) vs short term (party hard) Self (e.g. save diligently) vs others (gift generously) Getting what we like (e.g. favorite food, ambitiousness) vs liking what we get (e.g. any food, gratitude, lower standards) Outcome (e.g. wealth) vs process (e.g. enjoying work) By my thirties, I felt happiness is the intersection of pleasure and meaning. So I tried to be aware of and balance both. In my forties, The Landmark Forum introduced me to the idea that life has no intrinsic meaning, so you can pick. So I tried to pick meanings, changing them with time. In my fifties, I'm learning that the meaning of life can be viewed through many lenses, like: Physiology: What the body wants Survive: The body wants to maintain homeostasis and stay alive. Enjoy: The body seeks pleasure and avoids pain (hedonic drive). Reproduce: Genes want to propogate the species. Psychology: What the mind craves Connect: Build social bonds and connections to loved ones. Grow: Become the most that one can be. (Self-actualization, mastery, autonomy, purpose) Contribute: Create things that outlast us. Philosophy: What the spirit seeks Serve divine will: Fulfil your divine purpose or duty (Theistic/Karmic). Live virtuously: Flourish through virtue, fulfilling your potential. (Virtue Ethics) Make your own meaning: Life has no intrinsic meaning. We tend to make up meanings. Accept it, pick a meaning, enjoy. (Nihilism/Absurdism/Existentialism) Be rational: Live according to reason and nature; accept what you can't control (Stoicism). Maximize good: Maximize well-being for the greatest number (Utilitarianism). Serve people: Relieve suffering and help others. Transcend suffering: End suffering through detachment and the dissolution of ego (Buddhism). I still believe there's no intrinsic meaning. Just lenses. We change lenses over time. E.g. I moved from strongly believing "Serve divine will" to not believing it. We believe multiple lenses at a time. E.g. I "Enjoy" food but "Transcend suffering" by fasting. (In fact, fasting makes food more enjoyable.) Lenses can conflict. Genes want to "Reproduce" but not all mothers "Survive" childbirth. Zealots who "Serve divine will" may "Serve people" against that will. If that's the case, I no longer know how to evaluate right or wrong, good or bad, in an objective sense. Maybe these have meaning only within a lens. PS: In the mid-1990s, I made a list of things I wanted to write about and stored it on a floppy disk with the filename TOWRITE.TXT. This post was first on that list. After 30 years, I finally wrote it!

The meaning of life


Image models can generate original physically impossible scenes, and evaluating those outputs surfaces what makes paradoxical images feel clever rather than merely strange.

STEP 1: I asked Nano Banana 2 (via Gemini Pro) to: Imagine and draw a photo that looks ultra realistic but on a closer look, is physically impossible, and can only exist because images are a 2D projection that we extrapolate into three dimensions. Avoid known / popular illusions or images of this kind, like Escher's work, and create something truly original. Think and draw CAREFULLY! ... six times, followed by "Suggest a name for this". STEP 2: I asked Claude to analyze these like an expert at paradoxical images. Below is what Gemini generated, along with Claude's rating and reviews. Here's how I feel. Calvin describes paintings as high art, comic strips as low art, paintings of comic strips as high art, and Hobbes asks about a cartoon of a painting of a comic strip The Möbius Atrium ⭐⭐⭐½ Thinking Defining the Core Concept I'm focusing on crafting a misleadingly realistic image, a scene designed to draw the viewer in. The aim is for an initial perception of normalcy, immediately followed by the realization of its impossibility. Constructing the Paradox I'm now zeroing in on the impossible structure. The central hub is taking shape in my mind as the pivotal point where the walkway morphs into a roof, the "intersections". The goal is to craft a scene where the ribbon's path is initially believable, until the viewer traces the path and identifies a violation of physical laws. The architectural details are critical; the goal is to enhance the initial impression of normalcy. Refining the Architectural Paradox I'm now focusing on the paradoxical loop's visual cohesion. The goal is to ensure the ribbon's path appears plausible initially. I'm focusing on the "intersections" where the walkway morphs into the roof, and the roof becomes the garden floor. The background skyscraper's role is critical. The aim is to create visual deception through a plausible layout, which is ultimately exposed as an architectural impossibility. Visualizing the Impossibility I'm working on the plaza details to ensure they enhance the initial impression of realism. The goal is to make the central loop believable at first glance, before revealing its paradoxical nature upon closer inspection. The continuous ribbon structure must seem both plausible and physically impossible. I am focused on the scene's realism and paradox. A bustling plaza setting is now my primary focus. A continuous ribbon walkway must start as an elevated pedestrian bridge, cross over a plaza, and connect to a hub column. From this hub, it rises to become a cafe's roof. I am designing a visual that shows this ribbon structure curving down to become an elevated garden which loops, connecting back to the initial elevated walkway, which must somehow also be its own foundation, connecting seamlessly back into the column hub. Details such as people walking, sitting, and interacting with the environment are important to the illusion. Visualizing the Impossibility I'm now focusing on a continuous concrete and glass ribbon. It needs to look like a plausible walkway, overpass, and roof, all in one, while remaining physically impossible. This loop starts as an elevated pedestrian bridge coming from a building on the right. It curves over a plaza with people and greenery, then connects to a central hub column. From there, it rises to become a cafe's roof. The same structure curves down as an elevated garden that loops around a skyscraper. This elevated garden must move downwards and merge back with the initial column, appearing to pass under the original walkway. Defining the Urban Scene I'm now establishing the scene, a bustling plaza environment to ground the impossible structure. I'm focusing on the details: the glass buildings, greenery, and the diverse array of people to enhance the initial impression of normalcy. The aim is a visually dense and plausible setting for the architectural paradox. I am working on a visual scene of a bustling plaza to provide a stage for the impossible structure. The goal is to make the central loop believable at first glance, before revealing its paradoxical nature. I'm imagining a continuous concrete and glass ribbon that forms a loop as an overpass and cafe roof. I am picturing the continuous ribbon walkway from a right building with people walking. This loops into an elevated garden that connects back to the column hub. This hub column is central, and links all parts of the loop. Defining the Illusory Plaza I'm solidifying the urban setting. The goal is a densely populated plaza, filled with activity to create a believable environment. I'm focusing on the plaza details: glass skyscrapers, foliage, and diverse pedestrians. The scene must initially appear normal, so that the paradox is starker. The challenge lies in integrating the impossible structure into this environment seamlessly. I'm now fully focused on creating a bustling plaza to provide a stage for the impossible structure. I am working on the scene's composition so that the illusion is starker. I am imagining a continuous concrete and glass ribbon that forms a loop as an overpass and cafe roof. I am picturing the continuous ribbon walkway from a right building with people walking. This loops into an elevated garden that connects back to the column hub, which is the central, linking all parts of the loop. Analyzing Urban Form I am now focusing on the stylistic and physical attributes of this urban setting. The image is indeed realistic, however, it contains an impossible looping walkway. The structure intersects itself in a way that's only possible in 2D projection, similar to a Möbius strip. The composition is well-balanced. Verifying Realistic Elements I'm checking the scene for stylistic accuracy, noting the realism. The image has a good composition. The impossible structure, while convincing, uses a looping walkway that only exists in 2D projection, similar to a Möbius strip. I want the user to be aware of this. Since this image relies on the brain’s attempt to resolve a topological paradox within a mundane urban setting, the name should sound like a standard architectural landmark that hides a glitch in reality. I suggest: The Möbius Atrium. Why this works: The Möbius Strip: It references the mathematical property of a surface with only one side, mirroring how the walkway’s "top" becomes its "bottom" through the loop. Architectural Mundanity: Using the word "Atrium" or "Plaza" grounds the image in reality, making the physical impossibility feel like a casual bureaucratic oversight rather than a fantasy. Other contenders: The Zenith Paradox: For the way the path ascends and descends simultaneously. The Junction at Station North: A local-sounding name that implies people use this impossible route every day to get to work. Euclid’s Oversight: A subtle nod to the breaking of classical geometric rules. Claude's Review Mechanism: Topological impossibility What to look for: This attempts something far more ambitious than depth-order tricks — a Möbius topology in architecture. The expert question is: can I trace a continuous path along the upper walkway surface and return to my starting point having traversed both the top and underside of the ribbon? The structure appears to loop so that what begins as the walkway floor becomes the underside of the roof structure and then connects back — a one-sided surface. That's a Möbius strip. Why this is harder to read than the Anchored Arc: The Möbius mechanism is distributed — the impossibility is never localized to a single crossing point. You must complete the full loop to confirm it. In a 2D image, this requires active visual effort. Compare to the Anchored Arc, where one glance at the beam/arch crossing fires the paradox. Trigger point quality: 5/10. The expert will sense something is wrong immediately but will struggle to locate the exact violation. The image produces unease, not "aha." The view is too busy — people, greenery, signage, multiple levels — and the ribbon makes several crossings that could each be the site of impossibility. Expert question a beginner wouldn't ask: Is this a Möbius strip or just a figure-8 loop? A figure-8 flyover is perfectly buildable. The distinction matters: for true Möbius topology, the surface must invert orientation through the twist. That's hard to show in a static image without marking the surface. Anchor strategy: Excellent — Singapore/Hong Kong elevated walkways are familiar, so the brain wants to accept it. "The Atrium Cafe" and "Station North" labels are particularly clever — they mundanize the impossible. Verdict: Conceptually the most ambitious image in the series. The topological mechanism is genuinely unusual. But the paradox doesn't land cleanly — you sense rather than see it. The Pastoral Threshold ⭐½ Thinking Defining the Impossibility I'm currently focused on defining the nature of the spatial paradox within a normal-seeming scene. The initial concept involves a cluttered room. I am now working on the specific elements and how they'll interact to create the illusion of impossible geometry, visible only from a chosen vantage point. Constructing the Paradox I am now structuring the paradoxical element within the scene. I've settled on an artist's studio as the location. My focus is on integrating an impossible staircase into the artwork displayed on an easel. The staircase will loop back on itself in the painting, creating the illusion of impossible geometry when viewed from a specific angle. The goal now is to render this painted scene in a way that blends into the overall environment, making the paradox more subtle. Visualizing the Implausible I'm now focusing on integrating the impossible staircase within the painted artwork. I've considered the spatial relationships in the scene, aiming for a natural look. The artist's workspace details, like the brushes and the paint tubes, are finalized, giving context to the paradox on the easel. The painting title, artist signature and other details are being worked out. I am working on the exact path of the stairs to ensure it creates the necessary optical illusion. The plan is to ensure that the lighting adds depth and realism. Refining the Paradox I am now focusing on refining the studio environment. I'm finalizing details, such as the arrangement of paint tubes, brushes, and the artist's personal items. The exact path of the impossible staircase within the painting is set, but its integration with the studio setting is still being refined to ensure the optical illusion is as convincing as possible. The scene will feature a naturalistic light and composition. Constructing the Scene I am now structuring the entire scene to incorporate all requested details. The artist's studio now includes a wooden work table, brushes in a ceramic pot labeled "Winsor & Newton," paint tubes, pencils, and a sketchpad with the name "EL IZA." The worn paint palette nearby adds context. The easel holds the crucial painting, and its positioning within the studio is set to achieve the right perspective for the illusion. I'm finalizing lighting. Assessing Creative Novelty I'm now evaluating the originality. While the image presents a physically impossible scene—a staircase merging with a bookshelf—it leans heavily on existing stylistic themes. I'm focusing on whether the depiction deviates enough from known conventions to be considered truly novel. Refining Spatial Distortion I am now aiming for a truly novel spatial distortion. The prior attempt, while realistic, drew too directly from known illusions. My revised strategy centers the paradox on the window itself, not an element within the scene. I will replace the easel with a pastoral field and sheep, which serves as a realistic anchor. The crux now lies in re-engineering the window frame, with split-level sills to generate conflicting depth perspectives, which I think will avoid direct Escher allusions. The bottom-left pane now functions as a "depth trap." Analyzing Spatial Impossibility I'm now assessing the generated visual paradox against the original specifications. It still leans too heavily on established illusion concepts, particularly those of Escher, and thus is not fully original. To remedy this, I will ground the impossible geometry in the window frame, not a painting within the scene. I am now replacing the easel with a pastoral landscape. I plan to re-engineer the window structure to generate conflicting depth perspectives, with split-level sills. The bottom-left window pane will contain an impossible view of both an interior cellar and a distant landscape. Analyzing Spatial Anomalies I'm focusing now on the spatial inconsistencies within the images. The goal is to make sure these elements are clearly non-standard and break physical logic within a realistic, high-fidelity scene, where details make the impossible elements more striking. I am concentrating on the subtle ways that things intersect or don't. Refining Photorealism and Illogic I'm verifying that the image maintains photorealistic style while incorporating significant spatial anomalies. It is crucial the scene's initial realism heightens the impact of the impossible elements. The cat tail/beam interaction and the stairwell's unexpected placement achieve this subtle disruption of perceived reality. This builds on the foundation established previously, and I consider it a successful evolution. Considering the subtle way the physical world and the painted world overlap in this image, here are a few name suggestions that play on that "impossible" intersection: The Pastoral Threshold: Suggests the canvas isn't just a surface, but a literal doorway between the studio and the field. The Grazing Anchor: A nod to the sheep that is simultaneously "anchored" to the painted grass and the physical wooden easel. Canvas Spill: A literal description of the landscape leaking out of its bounds. The Painter’s Blind Spot: Playing on the idea that the artist is so focused on her work that she hasn't noticed reality is merging with her art. Incongruent Horizons: Highlights the way the 2D plane of the painting has hijacked the 3D space of the room. Personally, I’m partial to "The Pastoral Threshold"—it feels as quiet and unassuming as the image itself until you spot the glitch. Claude's Review Attempted mechanism: Hybrid spatial planes What to look for: The intended paradox is that the painting on the easel is not merely a painting — it bleeds into the 3D space of the studio. The canvas supposedly functions as both a bounded artwork and an actual window into a real space. The critical expert diagnosis: the paradox did not materialize. Look at the image carefully. What do you see? An artist in her studio. A painting of a pastoral scene on an easel. The painting is well-executed and hangs in correct perspective. Nothing in the image actually violates physical law. The Gemini thinking described wanting "Canvas Spill" — sheep or grass extending beyond the canvas boundary into the physical room, or the painting's light source contradicting the studio's light source, or the canvas depth perspective conflicting with the room's depth. None of these appear. The image is just a beautiful, photorealistic painting of an artist's studio — with no impossibility embedded. Beginner trap: The beginner accepts the image as a successful impossible image because the artist named it and described it as one. They'll rationalize an impossibility that isn't there. An expert insists on being able to point to the violation. One possible weak paradox, if you squint: The painting on the easel appears very large relative to the room — possibly its implied distance (given the pastoral horizon) should make it feel more "through a window than on a canvas." But that's not a paradox, it's just realism in the painting's depth. Why it failed: Hybrid spatial planes are the hardest mechanism to execute in photorealistic AI imagery. They require the model to place objects that are simultaneously 2D and 3D — which creates a contradiction the diffusion model doesn't know how to commit to. The model rendered a plausible studio instead. Verdict: A miss. This is the weakest image in the series. The Anchored Arc ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Thinking Defining the Core Concept I'm focused on developing a scene that's inherently impossible, exploiting 2D perception. The initial setting is a realistic, everyday space – a rustic interior. I'm aiming for a sense of normalcy that gradually unravels into the impossible. Constructing the Illusion I'm now building the impossible element: a stone bridge inside the rustic interior. It connects two seemingly disparate elevations within the space. The visual trick will rely on a carefully crafted perspective to create a jarring disconnect from reality. The goal is to make the elevation change feel seamless and inexplicable. Refining the Composition I'm now zeroing in on the specifics of the stone bridge's architecture within the rustic interior. I'm focusing on how the bridge interacts with the scene's elements to enhance the illusion. The main focus is the elevation trick. I am thinking carefully about camera angles to maximize the distortion. I am finalizing the placement of the bridge, working on the connection of disparate elevations to enhance the overall effect. The details of the table setting are taking shape, which aids the impossible perspective. I'm giving more focus to the interplay of shadows and the bridge, and how the shadows on the apples and linen reinforce the impossible depth. Constructing the Impossible I'm now zeroing in on the core illusion: the stone bridge connecting disparate elevations within the rustic interior. I'm focusing on the architectural design of the bridge itself, ensuring it seamlessly merges with the existing environment. I'm thinking about the viewing angle. The bridge must appear to defy physical space. The aim is to make the entire scene feel natural, but completely wrong. I am prioritizing a high level of detail for materials like aged wood and worn stone. The lighting should reinforce the illusion. Constructing the Core Scene I'm now establishing the scene's groundwork. The setting will feature a rustic farmhouse interior, starting with mundane elements: a wooden table, apples in a bowl, and a linen cloth. I'm focusing on the interplay of lighting. My focus is the stone bridge that will defy normal perspective. The scene's architectural elements are coming together. I'm concentrating on the bridge's design to highlight its paradoxical nature within the room. I'm meticulously detailing aged wood, stone textures, and lighting to enhance the illusion, specifically the viewpoint. Visualizing the Implausible I'm working on the core paradox: the physical impossibility presented by the stone bridge. I'm focusing on crafting an aged aesthetic with light and textures. I am analyzing the relationship between the bridge's segments and the table, and how the bridge casts shadows on objects that should be spatially in front of it. The key is conveying the illusion's impact. The bridge's curvature is crucial for generating the 2D perception trick. Analyzing the Impossible I'm focusing on the requested impossible 3D projection, evaluating how effectively the image realizes this concept. I'm assessing the effectiveness of the central stone arch and how it achieves the physically impossible object through a 2D projection. Refining the Illusion I'm working to enhance the impossible projection. The initial visual was strong, conveying the impossible arch effectively. However, I identified distracting annotations. I'm regenerating the image to eliminate these labels, aiming to preserve the hyper-realistic textures and natural lighting. Eliminating the Distractions I'm now focused on removing the visual clutter that takes away from the illusion. While the scene effectively presents the impossible 3D projection, the "A" and "B" annotations are distracting. I'm regenerating the image to remove these labels, aiming to maintain the documentary style, preserving the textures of the stone, wood, and cloth, and the natural lighting to keep the illusion strong. Analyzing Spatial Anomalies I'm verifying that the image maintains the desired impossible geometry within the rustic room setting. The focus is on the stone arch and ensuring the 2D projection illusion is clearly represented. I am working to ensure no extraneous elements or unwanted annotations are present within the generated scene. Confirming Visual Consistency I'm now carefully examining the image to ascertain that the impossible geometry remains intact. The stone archway is key, acting as the primary visual indicator of the 2D projection illusion. My goal is to guarantee the absence of any extraneous visual information within the rendered environment. I will present this for assessment. How about "The Anchored Arc"? At first glance, it feels like a rustic, cozy interior, but the more you look, the more the spatial logic collapses. The stone arch starts firmly on the floor in the foreground, yet manages to "pass through" the wooden beam and anchor itself into a wall that—based on the window—should be several feet behind it. A few other options depending on the "vibe" you want: The Carpenter's Paradox: Because it looks like a builder followed the blueprints for a 2D sketch without checking 3D reality. Depth Graft: Highlighting how the arch is literally grafted from one depth plane to another. Aperture Error: Sounds like a technical glitch in how the scene was "captured." Claude's Review Mechanism: Depth-order cycle (Penrose-type) What to look for: Trace the arch from its left foot forward, then overhead, then back to its right embedding point, and ask at each segment: what is in front of what? Here's what the expert traces: Left foot: planted on a stone block in the near foreground — clearly the closest object in the scene Arch apex: The stone arch passes behind the central wooden ceiling beam — the beam occludes the arch here Right foot: embedded into the far wall — definitively the deepest object The contradiction: The left foot is in front of everything. The beam is in front of the arch. But the right foot, which is the same continuous object as the left foot, is behind the beam and behind the wall. A single continuous object cannot simultaneously be the nearest and the farthest thing in the room. Trigger point quality: 9/10. An expert finds it in under 10 seconds. A beginner finds it in 20–40 seconds — that's ideal pacing. Anchor strategy: Flawless. The bowl of apples, the lantern, the linen cloth — all placed near the impossible junction as misdirection. The Cotswold farmhouse setting is visually familiar, which makes the brain want to accept it. Shadow test: The light source is the left windows. There is no shadow cast by the arch onto the floor — a subtle slip, but forgivable since the arch's self-contradiction is the main act. A purist would notice. Verdict: The best image in the series. This is a well-constructed impossible image — the equivalent of a clean Penrose triangle transported into photorealistic space. The Carpenter's Paradox ⭐⭐⭐½ Thinking Defining the Visual Concept I'm now focusing on a complex visual concept. I've settled on the idea of a busy workshop or an outdoor scene. The goal is to obscure the impossible element within a chaotic composition. The scene must appear candid, as if snapped in daylight. This will help make the manipulation less obvious at first glance. Refining the Impossible Structure I'm now zeroing in on the impossible structure's details. The woodworking setup will feature a multi-level architectural model on a workbench. It will use interlocking beams and ramps. The aim is to create an illusion of depth, so that the apparent physical impossibility is initially obscured. The visual trick will rely on a horizontal beam crossing over a vertical post at one point, and the vertical post crossing over the same horizontal beam at another point. Constructing the Impossible Object I am now focusing on the impossible structure on the workbench, seeking ways to make it subtly and fundamentally impossible. The artisan's figure is now central, but not dominant. I plan for this woodworking structure to incorporate a visual trick that exploits occlusion and perspective. I am attempting to design an architectural model that, from a single viewpoint, presents a logical, continuous path that is, in reality, geometrically impossible. Designing the Composition I'm now integrating the impossible object into a realistic artisan studio. I'm focusing on the interplay of elements; the loft setting with natural light, the busy workbench, the artisan's actions, and the impossible structure. I need to ensure a balance between the chaotic workshop and the precisely designed impossible object. The visual trick will rely heavily on occlusion and perspective to ensure a sense of continuity, but will be mathematically impossible in 3D space. Defining the Artisan's Action I am now visualizing the artisan's role in constructing the impossible object. She will be adjusting a clamp on the workbench, drawing the viewer's eye to the area where the illusion occurs. I am focusing on her age, clothing, and physical state to ensure she appears focused on her task, and realistic. The composition balances the artisan's activity with the impossible object, and the cluttered workbench. Analyzing Spatial Paradox I'm currently focused on evaluating the image's adherence to spatial paradox principles. It's supposed to create an impossible object, but the latest iteration uses repeated figures instead of a true optical illusion. My current goal is to ensure the image effectively conveys a coherent impossible geometry and doesn't rely on repeating elements. Refining Impossible Geometry I'm now revising the design for the impossible object. The previous attempt, while realistic, lacked a true optical illusion; it leaned on duplicated figures. I'm aiming for a perspective-driven anomaly, a self-intersecting structure exploiting depth perception. The current plan is to modify the wood shop scene to include a complex, contradictory geometry. A key goal is to have a main pillar appear from behind a central beam, then cross over it higher up, defying logical construction and relying on the grain pattern for coherence. Revising Illusory Structure I'm now zeroing in on an image that centers on geometric impossibility. The current image lacks the necessary coherence; it depends on duplicated elements. I'm aiming for a perspective-driven anomaly within a wood shop scene. My main focus is a structure that looks self-intersecting, challenging depth perception. I'm working to make a main pillar look as if it emerges from behind, yet later appears over the top of a beam, using grain patterns for visual cohesion. Refining Spatial Illusions I have checked the updated image and confirmed the duplicate character has been removed, and the earlier hallucinated text is gone. The setting now accurately portrays the workshop. I'm focusing on refining the impossible geometry. I'm redesigning the scene around a Penrose-style object and removing the woman to make it the central focus. I will generate a new image to push for a more impossible geometry. Generating Impossible Geometry I have verified the new image incorporates the desired impossible geometry; the Penrose lattice is now at the scene's focal point. I have successfully removed the woman and her tools, and I'm currently refining the lighting to produce physically impossible shadows. I've also incorporated foreground wood pieces to frame the shot. I will carefully adjust the camera angle to enhance the illusion. Analyzing Compositional Deficiencies I'm currently focused on the spatial arrangement within the generated image and whether it successfully presents an impossible object. I've noted that while the image exhibits some visual strengths, it hasn't achieved the intended impossible geometry. The composition has some improvements, but the core objective remains unfulfilled. Refining Geometrical Impossibility I'm now focused on generating a geometrically impossible structure. My aim is to replace the previous design with a Penrose-style lattice, ensuring consistent wood grain and non-Euclidean intersections to create a continuous loop. I'm also planning to adjust the lighting from the windows to conflict and enhance the surrealism. Removing the figure and the tools is also part of my plan, to clear any potential visual contradictions. Revising Impossible Geometry I've checked the image and while visually strong, the structure is still physically possible and not impossible. I removed the person and tools, and I will attempt to make the wood beams form a Penrose lattice that connects in loops. I'll make the light from the windows conflict. Clutter will be cleared from the base. The camera angle is now lower and centered. Analyzing Spatial Logic I've confirmed the alterations regarding the removal of the woman and hands, leading to an improved composition. The foreground elements were addressed effectively. I will next focus on the central wooden object, examining it for physical plausibility. Refining Impossible Geometry I'm now implementing alterations to the scene to generate a Penrose-style impossible shape for the central wooden structure. I've cleaned the intersecting beams at the top and base of the main vertical post, working on the vertical post itself. The goal is to make the top appear most distant, while the base appears closest, exploiting depth perception to create a spatial contradiction. Implementing Spatial Illusion I'm now working to generate an impossible shape using depth perception. I've cleaned up the central wooden structure by removing intersecting beams at the top and base. The vertical post's top is the most distant part, while its base is the nearest. Horizontal and diagonal beams will create a Penrose-style shape. I'm keeping natural light, a shallow depth of field, and wood textures consistent. Assessing Structural Integrity I'm now focused on the spatial anomalies and geometric impossibilities within the structure. The workshop environment's details and the central object's texture are under scrutiny. The focus is now solely on the structure itself. Analyzing Geometric Anomalies I'm verifying that the physically impossible nature of the structure is evident. Specific attention is on the self-intersections to confirm they defy 3D logic. The image successfully executes the removal of superfluous elements and highlights the structure with an emphasis on its unique joinery. This image plays with the concept of isometric ambiguity, where the wood grains and joinery appear perfectly tactile and real, yet the structural logic collapses upon closer inspection. I suggest naming it: The Carpenter’s Paradox Why this name works: The Irony: A workshop is a place of absolute precision and physical laws. To see a masterfully crafted "joint" that defies Euclidean geometry in such a grounded setting creates a sharp intellectual contrast. The Medium: It highlights that while the material (oak) looks authentic, the structure is an architectural impossibility that can only exist as a 2D projection. The Narrative: it suggests a craftsman who became so obsessed with joinery that they managed to "solve" a shape that shouldn't exist. Alternative Ideas: The Grain of Contradiction Orthogonal Defiance The Non-Euclidean Joiner Claude's Review Mechanism: Depth-order cycle (Penrose-type) What to look for: This is a 3D Penrose impossible object rendered in oak. Follow the beams and ask at each intersection: which beam is in front? The structure consists of rectangular frames intersecting at angles. At the central crossing region, trace any beam: it appears in front of the next, which appears in front of the next, which appears in front of the first — a cyclic occlusion chain. Expert technique: the grain continuity test. In a truly impossible object, the wood grain should appear continuous across joins that physically couldn't be continuous — two separate pieces meeting but their grain flowing as if from a single piece. This image partially achieves that, which is a nice detail. Trigger point quality: 6/10. The structure has too many intersections. The paradox is real but distributed across many beams, and the complexity makes it hard to lock onto a single clean contradiction. Compare to a Penrose triangle: three vertices, three contradictions, perfectly readable. This object has 6+ intersections and you're not sure which one to commit to. Expert question: Is this object actually impossible, or just visually complex? A careful 3D modeler might find an escape hatch — a valid 3D geometry that produces this exact 2D projection. The more intersections, the more likely an escape exists. Anchor strategy: Very good — the workshop setting with visible tools, workbench, and window is mundane and high-quality. The object being a finished sculpture rather than a work-in-progress is smart: it implies skilled craftsmanship, which makes the brain want to accept its physical reality. The Fold of Oak ⭐⭐⭐ Thinking Defining the Impossible I'm working on an ultra-realistic impossible structure. I'm focusing on a detailed natural environment with complex lighting to start. The aim is a real-looking photo with 2D tricks that produce 3D contradictions. Refining the Setting I'm now prioritizing the environment. A well-lit artist's studio seems ideal. It will have wooden shelves filled with art supplies, tools, raw materials and a rustic wooden work table. In the background, brick walls and large windows should provide natural light. The plan involves a blurred background of the studio and its contents, to enhance realism. I'm focusing on crafting a twisted lattice sculpture out of wood as the impossible object. Constructing the Illusion I'm now zeroing in on the impossible object. The wooden sculpture is evolving. I'm focusing on the structural impossibility: beams that twist and connect in ways that defy 3D geometry. The goal is a seamless blend of realism and optical illusion. I'm prioritizing the visual impact of the contradictions. Visualizing the Implausible I'm now focusing on composing the scene. The artist, a woman, is positioned to the left, intently working on the impossible sculpture which is the central focus. I'm prioritizing the interplay of light and shadow on the wood. The blurred background should support the realism of the studio with the artist's work. Defining the Contradiction I'm now zeroing in on the core of the illusion, the geometric flaw itself. The impossible object must look like it could exist, so it must be made from wood, looking like a real wooden object that is being worked on in a workshop by the artist. I'm focusing on the interplay of visual cues and geometric impossibility. The goal is to make the paradox of the structure immediately apparent upon close inspection. I'm planning the intersection point of the impossible connections. Finalizing the Scene I'm now zeroing in on the final image. The artist's pose and studio details are set. The focus is sharp on the impossible object's critical connection. I've designed the beams to loop in a way that creates a single, continuous, impossible object. I'm focusing on the light and shadow to expose the structural contradiction. Analyzing Impossible Geometry I'm focusing on the generated visual's adherence to the impossible geometry concept. My priority is confirming that the depicted structure, a workshop, is indeed physically unbuildable while maintaining an ultra-realistic photographic style. I'm assessing the textures, lighting, and geometric accuracy to ensure the core concept is faithfully rendered. Confirming Geometrical Paradox I'm now zeroing in on the geometrical paradox itself. The goal is to verify that the generated workshop is undeniably unbuildable in 3D while still adhering to the photographic realism. I'm prioritizing the original paradox aspect and verifying the absence of any direct Escher influence. I'm also confirming that the alignment creates the visual deception, leading to an impossible but visually coherent structure. This woodworking scene appears ultra-realistic at first glance, but close inspection of the central wooden structure reveals a physical impossibility. The beams on the left pass both over and under each other in a paradox that can only exist through the specific viewpoint provided by a 2D projection. That image definitely captures that "wait, what?" feeling. Since it blends the tactile, grounded reality of a woodshop with a geometric glitch in the matrix, here are a few name suggestions: The Carpenter's Knot: A play on "The Gordian Knot," suggesting a problem that can't be solved by untying it, only by changing how you look at it. The Fold of Oak: Sounds like a standard craft piece until you realize the wood is "folding" through itself in 3D space. Perspective’s Limit: A more literal take on how the image relies on a single, fixed point of view to maintain the illusion. The Joiner’s Paradox: "Joining" usually implies two pieces meeting; here, they seem to exist in the same space simultaneously. Flatland Craft: A nod to the book Flatland, implying this object was built by someone who understands dimensions we can't see. Personally, I'm partial to The Joiner's Paradox—it feels like something a frustrated apprentice would accidentally build in a dream. Claude's Review Mechanism: Depth-order cycle (identical to Carpenter's Paradox) Expert observation: This is the same mechanism as Carpenter's Paradox, executed in the same setting (woodworking workshop), with the same material (oak frames), differing mainly in that the object is rotated 45° and a human figure is present. What the figure adds: The carpenter's hands interacting with the object anchor it more firmly in physical reality, which should heighten the paradox. But it also creates a risk — her hands occlude portions of the impossible junctions, offering the brain a potential escape hatch. If you can't see the critical crossing, you can't confirm it's impossible. Here the woman's hands are near but not fully blocking the key intersections, so the paradox survives. Object vs Carpenter's Paradox: This object is simpler and slightly more legible — fewer beams, cleaner diamond composition. Paradox slightly easier to read. The core problem: This is the second wood-workshop impossible-frame image. Within a six-image series, repeating the same mechanism, material, setting, and compositional format constitutes a significant creative limitation. The Planar Glitch ⭐⭐ Thinking Defining the Environment I'm currently focused on defining the environment for this impossible scene. A photorealistic workshop or architectural setting seems most promising. I am leaning toward a brightly lit and busy atmosphere. I am actively considering how to integrate the impossible geometry seamlessly into this environment. Constructing the Core Object I am now focusing on the central impossible object and its composition. My intention is to create a structure of intersecting wooden blocks. It should present as a solid volume, but be impossible in three dimensions. I am aiming for a complex, handcrafted wooden sculpture on a workbench, constructed from interlocking square pine beams. The beams are to form an impossible cuboid framework. Refining the Composition I am now focusing on refining the scene's visual composition to emphasize projective impossibility. I am exploring how to arrange the workbench, tools, and background elements to create the desired focal point on the impossible wooden structure. I am actively working on the lighting to enhance the illusion. I am prioritizing a slightly elevated, front-on camera angle to maximize the effect of the intersecting wooden frames. Developing the Construction I am now delving into the precise mechanics of the impossible structure. The key is in the intersection of three beams, a vertical and two horizontals, which visually overlap perfectly. The image needs to clearly show this intersection, emphasizing the illusion of solid objects occupying the same space. Analyzing the Junction I am now closely analyzing the critical intersection of the wooden beams. My latest thought is that the visual trickery lies in the apparent seamlessness of the intersection. The image must show how the grain of the vertical beam seems to pass through the horizontal beam without a break, simultaneously occupying the same space. I'm focusing on the interplay of light and shadow. Developing the Setup I am now structuring the scene with a focus on realism to amplify the impossible nature of the central object. I've settled on a busy, brightly lit artist's studio. I'm prioritizing the inclusion of a worn workbench and scattered tools to provide context. The impossible wooden structure will be the focal point on the central bench, with a cluttered background to enhance the illusion. The lighting is being adjusted to cast sharp shadows and highlight the critical intersection. Analyzing Visual Paradoxes I'm assessing the latest rendering; the forced perspective creates an impossible workshop structure. The focus is on the overlapping planes at the 'B' intersection, creating a visual paradox, and I'm comparing it to earlier concepts. The photorealism is present, and I'm examining how effectively the illusion holds. Examining Novel Illusions I'm now determining how effectively the generated "woodworking piece" achieves its paradoxical nature. The goal is to avoid simple clones of existing concepts, so the originality of the implementation is under evaluation. I'm focusing on how well the forced perspective creates an effective illusion within this specific context. How about The Carpenter's Paradox? It plays on the contrast between the gritty, tactile realism of the workshop—the wood shavings, the glue, the weathered workbench—and the structural impossibility of the object itself. If you want something a bit more technical or "dry" (fitting for a blog post or a data-viz discussion), here are a few other options: The Planar Glitch: Highlights that the object only "works" because of the 2D projection. Miter’s Knot: Sounds like a traditional woodworking joint, but implies a knot that can't be untied by physics. The Orthogonal Lie: A nod to the right angles that shouldn't be able to connect the way they do. Draftsman's Delusion: Suggests a prototype that followed a flawed blueprint to a literal, impossible end. Claude's Review Mechanism: Depth-order cycle (same as above) Immediate expert red flag: There are handwritten "A" and "B" labels visible on the beams. These break immersion completely and signal this is a diagram, not a photograph. The Gemini thinking explicitly tried to remove them and failed. This is a production error that should disqualify the image from serious consideration. Beyond the labels: This is the third wood-workshop impossible-frame image in six. By this point the repetition is undeniable. A series with 50% identical setting-plus-mechanism is not exploring the space of impossible images; it is defaulting to a comfort zone. Verdict: The weakest execution of the three woodshop images, and ranked last in the series overall. Claude's Synthesis What the model does well Nano Banana 2's strongest suit is photorealism as a weapon. The material quality — mortar between stones, timber grain, leaded glass, studio clutter — is genuinely high. This matters because impossible images depend entirely on the viewer's willingness to accept the scene before discovering the contradiction. The model can produce that initial acceptance convincingly. The Anchored Arc is the standout work of the series: a textbook impossible image. The mechanism is clean (depth-order cycle), the trigger point is locatable and well-timed, the setting is perfectly chosen, and the mundane props (apples, lantern) function as skilled misdirection. If this image were the only one submitted, the review would be strong. The Möbius Atrium shows conceptual ambition. Topological impossibility is rarely attempted in photorealistic paradox imagery — it's much harder to execute than Penrose-type depth cycles. The image succeeds in conveying unease even if it doesn't land a precise trigger point. The dominant weakness: template collapse An expert reviewer's sharpest criticism is this: three of six images are the same image. Carpenter's Paradox, Fold of Oak, and Planar Glitch all use: A woodworking workshop An impossible interlocking wooden frame object in oak Depth-order cycle via Penrose-type impossible solid A craftsperson or workshop context as anchor This isn't creative variation — it's repetition. The model found a template that works and defaulted to it. This is the AI equivalent of a student who writes three essay answers using the same paragraph structure: technically passable, but it signals limited range. The prompt asked for images that "can only exist because images are a 2D projection" — a rich design space that includes shadow contradictions, impossible horizons, scale impossibilities, hybrid window/painting planes, impossible architectural interiors, impossible figures (two legs become three), etc. The model barely touched this space. The Pastoral Threshold failure is diagnostic The failed Pastoral Threshold image tells us something important: the model struggles with hybrid spatial planes — the mechanism where 2D and 3D spaces interpenetrate. This is arguably the richest and most original mechanism available to AI image generators, since they have unique capabilities in blending image spaces. That the model couldn't execute it suggests the prompt engineering didn't push hard enough on that frontier. Comparison to the genre | Comparator | What they master | Banana's position | | ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------- | | Escher | Internally consistent impossible architectures traceable by finger | Anchored Arc approaches this; others don't | | Reutersvärd / Penrose | Clean 3-junction impossible solids | The woodshop series is essentially photographic Reutersvärd | | Patrick Hughes (Reverspective) | Physical objects that deny their own physicality when viewed flat | The Atrium approaches this inverse but doesn't commit | | Sandro Del-Prete | Frame/painting/window bleeds | Pastoral Threshold attempted this and failed | | Rob Gonsalves | Magic realism where two physically valid scenes share pixels | This is the direction Nano Banana 2 should explore | The model operates comfortably in the Reutersvärd zone — impossible objects with photorealistic texture. It fails in the Del-Prete zone (frame-bleeding) and hasn't yet attempted the Gonsalves zone (scene interpenetration). The topological Atrium is an admirable outlier. Recommendations for the next series 1. Abandon the woodshop — it's become a crutch. One impossible-object image per series is enough. 2. Push shadow contradictions — an outdoor scene where a person casts shadows in two incompatible directions from a single sun is simple, clean, and devastating. 3. Pursue the canvas-reality bleed — try harder on the Pastoral Threshold concept with more explicit framing: sheep's shadow falling outside the canvas onto the floor, one sheep's back legs on wood floor. 4. Try impossible scale — a scene where a distant mountain is smaller than a nearby thumbnail-sized stone, and both scales are "correct." 5. For topological work: commit harder — mark the surface with an arrow or color gradient so the viewer can trace the Möbius inversion. Final assessment: A series of genuine technical quality with one masterwork, one ambitious experiment, one failed attempt, and three variations on the same theme. Nano Banana 2 demonstrates strong craft and real conceptual ambition — but the series reveals a model that hasn't yet fully explored the design space it was given. To be perfectly frank, it took me 5 minutes to carefully read what Claude liked so much about The Anchored Arc - and where the paradox was. I finally did figure it out (I think) and it does feel impressive. But from now on, I should probably leave art to the machines and go play outside. Calvin suggests leaving math to the machines

The Nano Banana Paradox


The much-hyped return of dormant programmers through vibe coding appears far smaller in observable public data than the narrative suggests.

I kept hearing that with the Nov 2025 release of Opus 4.5 and GPT 5.2 Codex, ex-coders were sprinting back to coding. On a sample of 1,700 developers on GitHub, exactly ten fit the "dormant returner" profile. Here are a couple of examples: [](https://github.com/tlwolsten) [](https://github.com/rjwalters) But they're the exception. I could find only TEN out of 1,700 developers who returned. I also found a few who exited: [](https://github.com/bocaletto-luca) To be fair, the vibe coding revolution is real, but maybe we are (I am) mis-interpreting it. 1. There are lots of new non-developers joining GitHub. Anecdotally, Naveen Gattu (finally!!) and Ankor Rai 2. A few high-profile ex-developers are returning and are very active. Anecdotally, Sebastian Siemiatkowski 3. But the majority of the developers who were less active last year remain less active. Read the full analysis.

The Nov 2025 Vibe Coding Ghost Revolution


I used an LLM to rewrite Primo Levi’s The Periodic Table in Randall Munroe's style chapter by chapter. This iterative style transfer made the difficult text accessible and emotionally resonant, helping me engage with literature I otherwise wouldn't have read.

I read The Periodic Table by Primo Levi, written in Randall Munroe's style. Here is the conversation. Quip: They say LLMs hallucinate. I say Primo Levi hallunicates. I began with the prompt: Rewrite the first chapter Primo Levi's The Periodic table in the style of Randall Munroe. Same content, but as if Primo Levi had written it in Randall Munroe's style. After that, for each chapter, I prompted: Continue! Same depth, same style. It began wonderfully.\ It began humorously.\ It was enjoyable.\ It was fun. And then it turned darker.\ No, not darker. Grayer. Something else. Something to learn from.\ Something to cry on. Something that sticks. (I'm writing in its style.)\ Something that drains. (Yet, somehow, enriches?) I could not have read this book without the Randall Munroe rewrite.\ I did not read the original, so I cannot compare it with the original.\ I probably would NOT have read the original, so maybe it does not matter. I wanted to write about the process:\ Using AI to narrate each chapter in someone else's style.\ This is a useful technique. But it feels like so small compared to the book itself.\ Or the author. Or his experience. I can read 30 book summaries in the time this took.\ That probably has more utility.\ But ... Some posts are meant to for reading.\ Some are meant for the author, just to write.\ This is for me. Not to read. Just to write.

The Periodic Table by Primo Levi and Randall Munroe


I explored using Socratic prompting for AI agents, Gwern’s iterative poetry workflow, and browser automation via HAR files. I also evaluated tools like exiftool for metadata extraction and Qwen3 TTS for local voice cloning.

This week, I learned: Android screen recorder is the easiest way to record phone and WhatsApp calls. But that won't work for Google Meet, Teams, Zoom, etc. Gemini exiftool remains the best media metadata extractor (music, images, ...) though it's old, slow, and Perl-based. exiftool -csv -r /Music/ > music.csv exports all metadata as CSV. Installing the source via seems best. It's a good alternative to mp3tag / puddletag UI-based exports. ChatGPT Gemini ⭐ Some questions are for us to learn. Some are Socratic, and meant for the answerer to learn. When working with AI agents and interns, I find myself asking them several questions that I don't want to know the answer for, but is important for them along their journey. Roughly the equivalent of "Think step by step" converted into the Socratic method. For example: Instead of "Build a demo for this client", ask "Who is the audience? What's their objective?" and THEN ask for a demo. Instead of "Generate a dummy dataset for X", ask "What interesting insights would we want when analyzing X?" and THEN ask for a dataset. Instead of "Write this code", ask "What's the best architecture for this?" and THEN ask for code. Executable Markdown files with Unix pipes sounds like a clever idea. Prefix Markdown files with #!/usr/bin/env codex (or claude -p). Then, just write programs by describing them. Quotes from Isles of the Emberdark: Really, he should have known better than to punch a senator. Important people had underlings you punched on their behalf, and he should have found one of those. ChatGPT Canvas has a cool feature for editing documents or code. Just select a portion, ask for changes, and it edits it. Importantly, it's very fast. Greeking Out is a kid-friendly National Geographic podcast about ancient Greece and its influence on modern life. fly.io containers at sprites.dev seem impressive. You can SSH into them. They have public & private HTTPS URLs. It auto-sleeps after 30s. You can checkpoint any time and restore the ENTIRE system. It's FAST! This is great for agents. Just install Claude Code / Codex and other tools. Checkpoint it. Then ssh into it and use as required. The cost is typically 12c/hour - which is expensive to run forever but great for bursts. Simon Willison I'm seeing the Collider Bias in action (on a small sample). The developers who can communicate well don't code as well, and vice versa. Not because there's a negative correlation - but because I'm eliminating people who can neither code nor communicate. But interestingly, over a 1-3 month horizon, the ones who code start communicating much better but the ones who communicate well don't start coding much better. My theory is that the developers I work are communication-bottlenecked (e.g. lack of confidence) than unskilled (e.g. poor communicators). Prefer Zod for TypeScript validation and Ajv for schema validation. Typing has a lot of value, but don't overdo it. It's best used at fragile boundaries. ChatGPT ⭐ Notes from LLM poetry and the "greatness" question: Gwern follows this process to create good poetry. It's a good structure for ANY kind of expert workflow with LLMs today: 1. Analyze the style, content, and intent of the original. 2. Brainstorm 10+ different directions the poem could go. Emphasize diversity. 3. Critique each direction. Rate 1-5 stars. 4. Write the best one. 5. Critique and edit line by line. 6. Generate a new clean draft. 7. Repeat at least twice. 8. Print final version. "As a poet and scholar of poetry I feel comfortable arguing that Gwern’s work engineering prompts is, in effect, writing poetry." Mercor uses expert poets to creates rubric. Models generate poem that experts grades, which refines the rubric, which trains the model. But models tend to the mean and need nudges (from humans?) to surface outliers and ascribe meaning (uniquely human?), which is where greatness lies. Ethan Mollick: "I keep warning that so many of our systems are still built around the assumption that quality writing and analysis are costly and therefore meaningful signals. Our systems are very much not ready for the revelation that this is no longer true, as this planning objection AI shows." Basically, AI lowers the cost of Government and Corporate interactions. It'd be a cool hack to agent-ify these to death, i.e. do all kinds of Government / Corporate interactions that were painful earlier, but now are much easier. I just realized: "Will AI take my job?" is a variant of "Will immigrants take my job?" or "Will affirmative action take my job?" Any increase in labor capacity is a threat. But then, the only way to get promoted is if someone takes your job. So, maybe we should ask: "How do I become their boss?" Better yet, tell your boss "I created a 4-agent team and got 2X done. Give me a new title." Some simple yet powerful AI adoption principles from Will Larson - that I've seen work rather well: Make tools accessible Document tips & tricks Highlight how people (especially senior leaders) are using it An analysis of 1,250 Claude user interviews indicates that: Adoption of Creatives > Workforce > Scientists. Interestingly, the identity threat and guilt of Creatives > Workforce > Scientists! Creatives they feel they're cheating, lazy, or not adding value! Scientists use it less, but it's more a tool and THEY verify. Sceptical verification is the strongest thread. Mintlify is proposing .well-known/skills/ as the directory to store LLM skills sites want to publish. This could be an extension of the llms.txt mechanism. Open Responses is the open version of OpenAI's Responses API. OpenRouter and HuggingFace support is a big deal, and though Google, Anthropic, Meta etc. don't yet support it, they might. Restish converts OpenAPI specs into CLI tools - with shell completion. Combined with an OAuth CLI like oauth2c this is a great way to conert APIs to CLI commands. Via Vercel's agent-browser seems a good CLI choice for browser automation, alongside playwright-cli. It may be work switching from direct Playwright coding (on CDP). ChatGPT Capturing actions using HAR and passing it to LLMs seems like another clever way of using AI coding agents for browser automation. Via Open a browser. Open Devtools > Network and filter to HTML, XHR, WS, Other. Do what you want to automate, i.e. load LinkedIn, search, scroll, fetch next pages, etc. Devtools > Network > right click > “Save All As HAR”. Run the file through a HAR-sanitizer Prompt: “Create a Python client to automate the actions I captured in file.har". When any AI coding agent can build apps, value will probably migrate away from software to data, network (distribution and users), trust, taste, and physical goods. Owning these controls value. Also, infrastructure to run vibe-coded apps (e.g. auth, hosting, DB, LLM APIs, etc. bundled) will likely lead to Medium / WordPress like platforms. After 30 years of learning (and teaching) statistics, I finally found a good explanation of R². R²=80% means that 80% of the change is because of the other variable. Gemini ⭐ People think numbers create trust; often they create attack surfaces. Goodhart's Law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." By providing a number, you invite people to "game" the system or find the flaws in how that number was manufactured. The Precision Trap: While precise numbers can increase perceived credibility initially, they also lead to "anchoring." If the number is even slightly off, the entire foundation of trust collapses more violently than it would for a general estimate. Statistical Literacy Gap: Most people don't argue with "vibes," but many will argue with "averages" if their personal experience represents an outlier. The number creates a surface for anecdotal rebuttal. Eraser.io offers an AI architecture diagram generator that creates reasonable architectures. It uses its own diagram-as-code DSL, competing with D2, PlantUML, Mermaid, Exposing your workflow as a software interface productizes services businesses. For example, my auditors and immigration lawyers have portals where I can fill out forms, upload documents, see my status, etc. This standardizes their delivery, and creates a "product" moat. ⭐ Your "villains" or enemies are often alternatives/backups that have a role in the ecosystem, offering diversity/resilience when you're wrong. Create roles and incentives for them rather than eliminating them. For example: Don't make LLMs do all the work. Create a role for the clunky SQL whose resilience saves the day when LLMs hallucinate. Make the person who hates your prototype the Red Team Lead - to catch the flaws you miss. Make the people who reject your product the scouts / innovators - to find alternatives you miss. Neon.com is like Supabase but without auth, functions, etc. It's just Postgres as a service. An alternative for prototypes (that I haven't tried yet.) ChatGPT SuperTokens is an open-source self-hosted auth service that I'm hearing about more often, but haven't tested. Seems to be ahead of alternatives like Auth.js / Better Auth. ChatGPT Bollywood Falls Out Of Love is a great visual data story on The Kontinentalist by Surbhi about the decline of romance and growth of nationalism on bollywood genres. Recharts is a React charting library with some slick capabilities like brushing, customizable tooltips, and bar chart races. Via Rukmini - Data for India Qwen3 TTS is impressive. It voice-clones, streams, and the tone/style can be controlled via prompts. The model is small. I ran it locally without flash-attn (which I couldn't get to work) and took 14 seconds to generate an audio file for 10 words on my GPU machine. Environment setup: DeepSeek created an external memory system for LLMs that lets them look up (instead of computing to remember) knowledge. That means CPU RAM can be used instead of GPU, models can become smaller, and training can become faster. This looks like an example of how algorithms/ideas can continue the scaling laws. Gemini via Jeremy Howard

Things I Learned - 01 Feb 2026


I discovered unidown for LinkedIn formatting and codespelunker for fast code searching. I also explored Sangeeta Talwar’s Maggi marketing strategy, the strategic value of shadow IT, and how to track coding agent usage limits.

This week, I learned: unidown is a Rust CLI tool that converts Markdown to Unicode characters - useful for LinkedIn. 3 years into Nestle, Sangeeta Talwar (who was selling Maggi soup cubes) took the "Maggi Instant Noodles" (popular in Malaysia), changed it to "2-minutes", realized that noodles are fun for kids to play with, invented the masala flavor, positioned it as easy for moms, distributed hanging baskets (rodent-safe, brand visibility) at stores, marketed on TV and in stores, etc. Gemini Nano Banana Pro 2 is out. Better text, better instruction following. codespelunker is a fast CLI code search tool. Just run cs for an interactive search. It feels light and fast, like ug. lobste.rs Shadow IT is unpaid R&D, not a security threat. When frustrated marketing or sales teams secretly buy their own software tools and bypass the IT department, traditional companies try to ban them. Transformed companies study them. "Shadow IT" is a highly accurate heat map pointing exactly to where your current systems are failing and where the immediate business value lies. Source: CIO.com, Gartner: Business-Led IT Coding agents have introduced a "Usage" page to check your usage: Claude usage and ChatGPT usage. Both have weekly limits and 5 hour rolling limits - with Codex's being more generous. This aggregates usage across the coding agents as well. Codex has a separate GitHub Code Review quota separate from this, however.

Things I Learned - 01 Mar 2026


I found LiteParse for PDF parsing and explored GPT 5.5's high pricing. I learned about eigenquestions, tracking Claude usage via local OAuth tokens, and why AI agents change which parts of organizational ontology matter most.

This week, I learned: LiteParse is a PDF to text library that you can run via npx --package=@llamaindex/liteparse lit parse document.pdf. Simon Willison Always add indecisiveness, inaction, "other", "not applicable", etc. as an option to LLMs. They are trained for decisive responses and pattern matching, so we need to guide the the other way. Martin Fowler GPT 5.5 is priced twice that of GPT 5.4. No wonder my Codex usage is much higher than last month. Simon Willison. I am better off sticking to medium effort instead of the xhigh I usually use - it may not be required. OpenAI "... the eigenquestion is the question where, if answered, it likely answers the subsequent questions as well." Shishir Mehrotra & Matt Hudson Claude Code stores the logged in OAuth token at /.claude/.credentials.json. We can use that to fetch https://api.anthropic.com/api/oauth/usage and retrieve Claude usage and reset times. uvx ccusage does this automatically, but I prefer my own script. Ontology matters in the AI era. But some stuff matters more, and some less. 🟢 MORE: Definitions: what "customer" means 🟢 MORE: Constraints: e.g. "don't reclassify loans" 🟢 MORE: Interactions: how to verify, coordinate, delegate, ... 🔴 LESS: Creating ontologies: agents can do that. 🔴 LESS: Completeness and rigor: agents tolerate uncertainty. 🔴 LESS: Proprietary: agents can reverse-engineer. There are several industries / markets that MBA case studies rarely cover (ChatGPT): Kirana stores; Care (child care, elder care, domestic work); Faith (finance, food, media, education); Remittances; Gambling (lottery, sports betting, gacha); Scams & organized fraud; Counterfeiting; ...

Things I Learned - 03 May 2026