This is like someone with no background in physics or engineering wondering "can a LLM predict the trajectory of my golf ball". They then pontificate about how absolutely complex all of the interacting phenomenon must be! What if there was wind? I didn't tell it what elevation I was at! How could it know the air density!? What if the golf ball wasn't a perfect sphere!!? O M G
And then being amazed when it gets the generic shape of a ballistic curve subject to air resistance.
This speaks far more to the ignorance of the author than something mind boggling about the LLM.
https://apps.apple.com/ph/app/grind-finer-app/id6760079211
Its far from perfect when it comes to predictions right now but I expect to have massive improvements over the coming weeks. For now it works ok as an espresso log at least.
I'm hoping after a few tweaks I can save people a lot of wasted coffee!
Wifey found a kitchen built in unit a few years ago and it is still doing the job, very nicely.
Let's face it, what you want is a decent coffee and you have to start from that point, not what sort of bump or grind (that's grindr).
I want a cup of coffee with: - Correct volume - sometimes a shot, mostly an "Americano" - I'm British don't you know - Correct temperature - it'll go really bitter if too hot. Too cold - ... it'll be cold. - Crema - A soft top is non negotiable - Flavour - Ingredients and temperature (mostly)
The unit we have now manages bean to cup quite reasonably, without any mensuration facilities. I have made coffee for several Italians and they were quite happy with the results.
Does that seem hard? I think it’s hard. The relevant physical phenomena include at least..,
In most engineering problems, the starting point is recognizing that usually one or two key things will dominate and the rest won’t matter.I'm also curious to see the details of the models that Dynomight's LLMs produced!
LLM T(t) Cost
Kimi K2.5 (reasoning) 20 + 52.9 exp(-t/3600)+ 27.1 exp(-t/80) $0.01
Gemini 3.1 Pro 20 + 53 exp(-t/2500) + 27 exp(-t/149.25) $0.09
GPT 5.4 20 + 54.6 exp(-t/2920) + 25.4 exp(-t/68.1) $0.11
Claude 4.6 Opus (reasoning) 20 + 55 exp(-t/1700) + 25 exp(-t/43) $0.61 (eeek)
Qwen3-235B 20 + 53.17 exp(-t/1414.43) $0.009
GLM-4.7 (reasoning) 20 + 53.2 exp(-t/2500) $0.03I'd like to see a sensitivity study to see how much those terms would need to be changed to match within a few %. Exponentials are really tweaky!
I'd be very interested in seeing separate graphs for each major component and how they add up to the total. Even asking the LLMs to separate it out might improve some of their results, would be interesting to try that too.
dT/dt = -k(T_0 - T_room)
so T(t) = T_room + (T_0 - T_room) exp(-kt)
exp(-x) has a fast drop off then levels off.
scroll down, these graphs just don't look similar.
There is another factor here: convection. Its speed depends on the viscosity of the fluid and the temperature difference both. And viscosity itself depends on the temperature, so you get this very sharp dropoff.
Of all the cooling modes identified by the author, one will dominate. And it is almost certainly going to have an exponential relationship with time.
Once this mode decays below the next fastest will this new fastest mode will dominate.
All the LLM has to do, then, is give a reasonable estimate for the Q for:
$T = To exp(-Qt)$
This is not too hard to fit if your training set has the internet within itself.
I would have been more interested to see the equations than the plots, but I would have been most interested to see the plots in log space. There, each cooling mode is a straight line.
The data collected, btw, appears to have at least two exponential modes within it.
[The author did not list the temperature dependance of heat capacity, which for pure water is fairly constant]
Imo no, this seems like something that would be in multiple scientific papers so a LLM would be able to generate the answer based on predictive text.
Impossible, since it is chaotic.
But a T(t) model should not be too hard for an LLM with a basic heat transfer book in its training set.