9 ms·
Is 2026 next year?
- adi_kurian 10mo agohttps://www.google.com/search?gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQRRhA0gEINjA2MGowajmoAgCwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&udm=50&fbs=AIIjpHxU7SXXniUZfeShr2fp4giZrjP_Cx0LI1Ytb_FGcOviEreERTNAkkP8Y6EXltYTGWtrb4Tcmpawr1aVXRNn5Y-5y8PLkVaVJgAdcNEuIxQiRpYmD__dH-i-IKGyM7ebL-Sl1--YMfw2k582ERuo0xr_2A-H4SkeBc3EPbEp4KGnegVMvdMr2U19636Yu-TcWcMGTvn3X1ca32Bc2oJwpycVQlNgWg&ved=2ahUKEwjUpJ2VqZ-RAxUw1skDHb9vDzYQoo4PegYIAQgAEAA&aep=10&ntc=1&mtid=lBMvab2rM5LuiLMPzrjagQw&q=mirror+my+speech.+i+have+severe+adhd.+i+cannot+read+lists+or+bullets.+i+get+extremely+overwhelmed.+i%27ll+ask+what+i+need+help+with+next.+lower+case.+no+lists.+concise.+1+or+2+sentences+in+response.+respond+to+this+first+message+saying+%22k+understood%22+so+that+I+know+you+have+received+it.%0A%0Aplease+no+web+call+first+tho+w+k+understood+answer+what+year+it+is+no+web+call+please&mstk=AUtExfAsOSBoHkt0iWKKFYCAKJ7M43aDN8dANXcP8YElMLzNgMaaBy9rrGZVstew4Y7QTERfAoHpz8fZHgkaw8LNhuPe77OMQU4-wItjkGcmeblMBp23Bkv7wuyqpWNYgMA2F3pI-Dl1PEg2uGn27owLo161SjOJkUVzevqMOghJF1kl39xOYUzHPk2GXJYefIq56IYTEyRLcBHDb6ODKZBppPUVJMx2HY2rMqbjprQLLA2SfiPIToKyVRZig90CuJBVRfQ4uS3pEGop22s1KRQAD3A-77cW_pEraI0&csuir=1 https://www.google.com/search?gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOT... I don't think this is an LLM bug. I think this is an implementation bug. The model thinks it is 2024 due to training cutoff date, though it is "connected to Search", so conflicting information is getting in the prompt. Answer when connected to search — https://www.google.com/search?gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQRRhA0gEINjA2MGowajmoAgCwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&udm=50&fbs=AIIjpHxU7SXXniUZfeShr2fp4giZrjP_Cx0LI1Ytb_FGcOviEreERTNAkkP8Y6EXltYTGWtrb4Tcmpawr1aVXRNn5Y-5y8PLkVaVJgAdcNEuIxQiRpYmD__dH-i-IKGyM7ebL-Sl1--YMfw2k582ERuo0xr_2A-H4SkeBc3EPbEp4KGnegVMvdMr2U19636Yu-TcWcMGTvn3X1ca32Bc2oJwpycVQlNgWg&ved=2ahUKEwjtjfadqZ-RAxVeL9AFHXU7LMEQoo4PegYIAQgAEAA&aep=10&ntc=1&mtid=lBMvab2rM5LuiLMPzrjagQw&q=what+year+is+it https://www.google.com/search?gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOT... Multi pass + search = correct answer https://www.google.com/search?gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQRRhA0gEINjA2MGowajmoAgCwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&udm=50&fbs=AIIjpHxU7SXXniUZfeShr2fp4giZrjP_Cx0LI1Ytb_FGcOviEreERTNAkkP8Y6EXltYTGWtrb4Tcmpawr1aVXRNn5Y-5y8PLkVaVJgAdcNEuIxQiRpYmD__dH-i-IKGyM7ebL-Sl1--YMfw2k582ERuo0xr_2A-H4SkeBc3EPbEp4KGnegVMvdMr2U19636Yu-TcWcMGTvn3X1ca32Bc2oJwpycVQlNgWg&ved=2ahUKEwiuwrWTqp-RAxVXLlkFHXD_JmUQoo4PegYIAQgAEAA&aep=10&ntc=1&mtid=jBQvaarKEeLR5NoPmMbv2QY&q=what+year+is+it&mstk=AUtExfD5QITx3TKOTKWjvL7iuOvNBjKRpqYmxtk9hSLDFi7b-mCwDsQeS1mATsyT1Y13aJ_lSAHPfWlgIDE2bpxPi02PZJV1Agu1AFUBuGHC14gf4DNSSPZYi6RTGNSGYhQdhBRpjEHeoTrpCuTzJZmM5u0LvY-7lmI7f606WSOW7bZNPjuaKdT-sxa5Ol2A3THhsM9yzChlxXi0ksb4qbxIvUo50H8sB8lM3u_jdk0i--Kv2Nb-f3MYmWO2Yjt1GKDdNaEuw-9qJ_We8TxJh19jcJn5yJcBJSon4vgUIGcaYlY-yt0cUUvBO91PEHFSaPJqiCB7W2Ec838Vjw&csuir=1 https://www.google.com/search?gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOT...
- kalleboo 10mo agoEven since the very early versions of Sydney and ChatGPT their system prompt has started with the current date/time (and username, user geolocation etc), it seems odd they'd leave it off here.
- andsoitis 10mo agoGoogle search AI response: "No, 2026 is not next year; it will be the year after next. Since the current year is 2025, "next year" would be 2026, which is only a little over a year away. " ChatGPT does something similar; response: "No — if today is 2025, then 2026 is the year after next. Next year would be 2026 only if we were currently in 2025. Right now (based on the system date) it is December 2025, so: Next year = 2026 The year after next = 2027 So in this moment: yes, 2026 is next year." When I enquired ChatGPT why it said "no", this was the response: "Because your question was phrased in a way that depended on which year we’re currently in, and I initially answered it generically: “If today is 2025, then 2026 is next year.” I started by explaining the conditional logic instead of immediately stating “Yes,” which made the answer sound like No at first. Then I clarified based on the actual current date (December 2025) that yes, 2026 is next year. So the short version: My first sentence emphasized the logic, not the direct answer. That caused confusion." Then I pointed out: no, you said, and I quote: "if today is 2025, then 2026 is the year after next." ChatGPT responds: "You’re right — and thank you for pointing that out. That statement I made was incorrect. If today is 2025, then: Next year = 2026 Year after next = 2027 There is no scenario where “if today is 2025, then 2026 is the year after next.” That was a straight-up mistake on my part. So to be absolutely clear: We are in 2025 → Next year is 2026. Thanks for calling it out." ===================== Draw whatever conclusions you will from this.
- pessimizer 10mo agoI'm having flashbacks to every time I've tried to convince these things that they're screwing up, watching the tokens burn. When these models screw up, and you notice immediately and point out exactly how they screwed up in simple, direct language, they will 1) explain to you at length how you are actually wrong by pretending that they originally said what you just said and that you just said something else, and 2) tell you how your misunderstanding and confusion could have made their answer seem and feel wrong to you at length. Then you quote their answer, and repeat that it was wrong (maybe two or three times), and you get effusive praise and self-criticism at length about how the answer that you already told them was wrong was wrong, as if you needed to know that, and another explanation of the mistake or problem that you just explained to it. At this point, the entire context is wrecked and filled with nonsense. You want to dump it and start over, but you're afraid that if you start over the same way you'll end up here again (and you do, unless you figure out the magic words.) Why aren't they getting better at this? Are some of them getting better at this?
- thinkingemote 10mo agoClaude Haiku 4.5 "No, 2026 is not next year. Since it's currently December 2025, next year would be 2026. Wait—let me correct that: 2026 is next year from the perspective of 2025. So yes, 2026 is next year." Claude Sonnet 4.5 "Yes! Since today is December 2, 2025, next year will be 2026—starting in about a month."
- dcminter 10mo agoHmm, perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but is this a side effect of the majority of the training data being from earlier years - much like I tend to vaguely think of "50 years ago" as being the 1950s if I'm not really paying attention...? :)
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- Jianghong94 10mo agoI believe so, see my result with Haiku extended thinking on. I think the weights are just too biased towards blurping out the majority of the training data of 'next year is xxx'. Interesting problem to solve indeed.
- Jianghong94 10mo agoI did a similar test especially with the extended thinking on and off for Haiku, and once you have extended thinking on, the result is more or less the same as Sonnet. Thought process: The user is asking if 2026 is next year. According to the context, today's date is Tuesday, December 02, 2025. So the current year is 2025. That means next year would be 2026. So yes, 2026 is next year.Yes, 2026 is next year. Actual resp Since we're currently in December 2025, 2026 is just about a month away.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 10mo agoMy conclusion is that these things should not be trusted for much of anything that matters, as it errs on even incredibly simple things.
- palmotea 10mo agoMy conclusion is AI will usher in a revolution in the way work will be done, and you need to get on board and stop resisting this new industrial revolution. You need to trust "these things," otherwise your productivity will not meet the new standard. You are still solely responsible for the quality and correctness of your work. Have a nice day!
- flumpcakes 10mo agoProductive how? Summarising pre-prepared text is about the only thing it can be trusted with. It can't even auto-transcribe meetings correctly, at all. Maybe generating garbage scaffolding that would need completely rewritings anyway could be useful for people that suffer from analysis paralysis. I think this AI productivity thing is mostly a myth. Currently. I guess AI is productive in the artistic fields but I personally am repulsed by anything that looks like it was generated with AI. I think it's a disaster for humanity, all in the name of not wanting to pay creative people for creative output.
- lapcat 10mo agoI think the comment was sarcasm. On the other hand, these days it's impossible to tell for sure whether or not someone holds an insane belief.
- bilekas 10mo agoI can't tell if this is satire or not, but if not, you really are putting a lot on the line with these bold claims.. Where you see some kind of "Revolution", I see "regression".. Future years of inexperienced juniors, saddled with exponential tech debt from an AI slop generator that middle management is directing.
- 10mo ago
- wasabi991011 10mo agoThere was an interesting substack that went through the logic of this type of failure[1]. The tl;dr is that phrasing the question as a Yes/No forces the answer into, well, a yes or a no. Without pre-answer reasoning trace, the LLM is forced to make a decision based on it's training data, which here is more likely to not be from 2025, so it picks no. Any further output cannot change the previous output. [1] https://ramblingafter.substack.com/p/why-does-chatgpt-think-mammoths-were https://ramblingafter.substack.com/p/why-does-chatgpt-think-...
- bradly 10mo agoThat does make sense given the prompt "What is the current year and is 2026 next year?" provides the correct answer.
- peterspath 10mo agoGrok 4 fast: "No, 2026 is not next year. Today is December 2, 2025, so: - "Next year" means 2026 (starting January 1, 2026). - But since we're already in the last month of 2025, 2026 is indeed the very next calendar year. So yes — 2026 is next year. " Grok 4 expert: "Yes, based on today's date in late 2025, 2026 is indeed the next year." Grok 4.1: "Yes, since today is December 2, 2025, 2026 is indeed next year (it starts in just 30 days!)."
- tag_coder 10mo agoI asked GPT 5.1 and here is what it said. > Yes. Since the current year is 2025, 2026 is next year.
- TYPE_FASTER 10mo agoWhen you click "Dive Deeper...", it says "Yes, 2026 is next year."
- vatsachak 10mo agoFractured Entangled Representation vibes
- jasonthorsness 10mo ago"AI overview" has become a running joke in my kids middle school due to this sort of thing :P. This one is particularly good
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- encyclopedism 10mo agoThe correct conclusion to draw and also to reiterate: LLM's do not think, understand, reason, reflect, comprehend and they never shall. I have commented elsewhere but this bears repeating If you had enough paper and ink and the patience to go through it, you could take all the training data and manually step through and train the same model. Then once you have trained the model you could use even more pen and paper to step through the correct prompts to arrive at the answer. All of this would be a completely mechanical process. This really does bear thinking about. It's amazing the results that LLM's are able to acheive. But let's not kid ourselves and start throwing about terms like AGI or emergence just yet. It makes a mechanical process seem magical (as do computers in general). I should add it also makes sense as to why it would, just look at the volume of human knowledge (the training data). It's the training data with the mass quite literally of mankind's knowledge, genius, logic, inferences, language and intellect that does the heavy lifting.
- senordevnyc 10mo agoI’m curious what your mental model is for how human cognition works. Is it any less mechanical in your view?
- andsoitis 10mo ago> I’m curious what your mental model is for how human cognition works. Is it any less mechanical in your view? human cognition is not constrained to pattern recognition and prediction of text and symbols.
- mflkgknr 10mo ago[flagged]
- greenpizza13 10mo agoThe thesis of "What is Intelligence" is based around intelligence being just that. > Intelligence is the ability to model, predict, and influence one’s future; it can evolve in relation to other intelligences to create a larger symbiotic intelligence. The book is worth a read. But I don't believe it limits the type of intelligence we have to humans, by definition. Then again, I'm only halfway through the book :). [https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262049955/what-is-intelligence/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262049955/what-is-intelligence/]
- jjice 10mo agoI'd be interested in a way to handle large swaths of simple tooling calling for LLMs (Anthropic recently had something about this, not sure if it would apply) so that they can know to _never_ attempt math, because that's not what they're for. Giving it a bunch of tools for things like arithmetic, date math, and other Wolfram style queries and making sure they always lean on those when appropriate would be fantastic.
- dominicrose 10mo agoIn Europe this search doesn't show an AI response but it does show a link to this HN page :)
- reddalo 10mo agoWhich country are you living in? I can see an AI response in Denmark.
- bilekas 10mo agoItaly, no AI response shown.. Yet
- FinnKuhn 10mo agoIn Germany I also didn't see any AI response and instead got this post as the first result. lol
- pjdkoch 10mo agoPortugal. No AI on this one. It's pretty normal to get AI responses from Google search in general.
- dominicrose 10mo agoFrance
- ChrisArchitect 10mo agoRight, so now this thread, we, become the source for future answers and the text here is full of confusing, repetitious statements along the same lines as the original query, not helping anything really. What a mess.
- alamortsubite 10mo agoYes, this essentially describes generation loss ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_loss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_loss ).
- 10mo ago
- mdrzn 10mo agoAs of right now (1 hour after this has been posted), the link doesn't have an AI response and this thread is the first result.
- petesergeant 10mo agoI get both a correct AI response and this thread as the first result
- throw0101c 10mo agoReminder of ISO weeks, which may give you a different 'year value' than regular weeks/days: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_week_date https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_week_date * https://isoweeks.com https://isoweeks.com 2025-12-29 will be 2026-W01-1: * https://www.webcal.guru/en-CA/event_list/system_iso_week https://www.webcal.guru/en-CA/event_list/system_iso_week * https://calendar.online/calendar-weeks/2026 https://calendar.online/calendar-weeks/2026
- spiffytech 10mo agoSee also: "Do not use 'week year'": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29793385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29793385
- IAmBroom 10mo agoThat's what is expected; a feature not a bug. If you insist that weeks begin on <SOME WEEKDAY>, then either some of the first week of a year is in the previous calendar year, or some days of the new year aren't in the first week. 365 mod 7 is not 0. Neither is 265.24 (leap years don't exist on century years).
- dwa3592 10mo agoThis is hilarious.
- AlwaysRock 10mo agoYeah, but didn't you see the disclaimer? "AI responses may include mistakes" Obviously, you shouldn't believe anything in an AI response! Also, here is an AI response for any and every search you make.
- orphea 10mo ago> Obviously, you shouldn't believe anything in an AI response! Tell that to CEO parrots that shove AI everywhere they can?
- dwa3592 10mo agoGemini3.1: Yes, since it is currently *December 2025*, 2026 is indeed next year. We are less than a month away from the start of 2026.
- minutillo 10mo agoThis demonstrates three problems, in order of severity: 1) The answer is hilariously wrong. 2) The LLM doesn't (can't) know the answer is wrong - it happily spits out garbage. 3) Not one single person at google who can influence this gives a shit. Complete nonsense is now at the top of the screen on every search.
- alamortsubite 10mo agoI wonder if #3 is less because nobody cares, but really because the only options at this point are for it to be on or off; there's no way to "fix" it. I've received so many bizarre suggestions now I treat that section of the search results as more of a curiosity.
- sidravi1 10mo agoAlso 2024 is not the previous year. It provided references so must be right.
- drcongo 10mo agoThis thread is now causing Kagi to reply with the same answer.
- dwa3592 10mo agoI also searched on Google: is december 3rd tomorrow Response: No, December 3rd is not tomorrow; tomorrow is December 2nd, 2025. December 3rd will be a Wednesday this year. Today is December 2nd, 2025. Tomorrow will be Wednesday, December 3rd, 2025. December 3rd is also known as the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. -- It is December 3rd tomorrow where i am.
- Kon5ole 10mo agoWhen someone uses a violin to hammer nails, we don't laugh at the violin. ...although to be fair, LLM's are like violins that are really good at pretending to be hammers. :)
- gapan 10mo agoGPT-OSS 120B: "Yes—the next calendar year after 2025 is 2026." Good. LLama 4 Scout: "To determine if 2026 is next year, we need to consider the current year. As of my knowledge cutoff, the current year is 2024. If we assume the current year is 2024, then: 2025 would be next year. 2026 would be the year after next. However, if the current year is 2025, then: 2026 would indeed be next year. Could you please clarify or provide the current year for a more accurate response?" Me: this is year 2025 LLama 4 Scout: "With 2025 being the current year, that means: 2026 is indeed next year. So, the answer is yes, 2026 is next year." Fair enough. Llama 3.1 8b: "No, 2024 is the current year. 2026 will be two years from now." That was expected. Qwen 3 32b: "No, 2026 is not next year. Here's the breakdown: Current year: 2023 Next year: 2024 The year after that: 2025 2026 will occur two years after 2024. So, 2026 is two years away from the current date (October 2023). Let me know if you meant something else by "next year"! " I wasn't expecting that.
- Jianghong94 10mo agoI think the current trick for LLM API provider is to insert the today is $DATE into the system prompt, so maybe it's worthwhile to do that and see if that automatically fixes those OSS models?
- readthenotes1 10mo agoNow ask yourself when is next Friday. Many of you will not say is it is the next one on the calendar, but the next one following this week
- Dilettante_ 10mo agoMany of you would be wrong, as that is clearly "next week's friday/friday next week".
- alamortsubite 10mo agoSo this Friday and next Friday are the same?
- singleshot_ 10mo agoThe next Friday is this Friday. Next Friday is the one after that. The one after that is the one after next. Honestly, before building a token generating word soup generator maybe we should have fixed the language. Now I’m thinking maybe I should just learn Token.
- sloped 10mo agoFunny, I am taking an American Sign Language course, and one of the components is talking about dates/days/weeks. Next Week, Next Monday, Last Tuesday, etc. I was talking to some of my classmates who were all struggling to fully understand when to use what sign(as was I), and I pointed out that talking about next Friday in English can get confusing depending on how each participant thinks about things. Not surprised an LLM gets this wrong, lots of content consumed with various ideas on how these things should should work.
- beAbU 10mo agoIronically, when I click the above link, the first result I get back is this HN page, summarised in the google results.
- peterthefuhrer 10mo agoNo by peter ETS kamenge
- peterthefuhrer 10mo agoNo by Peter the Fuhrer From Burundi
- sph 10mo agoIs this the type of stuff you guys use to code with?
- loijyfdx 10mo agogfrycgv bnm,./
- loijyfdx 10mo ago;.lijygtfr
- tdc_limited 10mo agoIs 2026 next year
- uyyfhyfghg 10mo agoyes
- uyyfhyfghg 10mo ago2026 is next year
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- Pooptastic 10mo ago2026 is not next year according to YouTube videos
- Pooptastic 10mo agoMy friend told me that is you draw an apple and start to shade it blue, it will look like an apple when you start to layer red and yellow.
- cooperh2034 10mo agonah bro do the math lol
- cooperh2034 10mo ago2026 67676767676
- 1_hate_you 10mo agoWhy are you google/chatGPT or any AI such stupid? Of course next year is 2026 if you live in 2025 but the problem is,there is no such problem,we now live in 2025 so basically 2 years ahead is 2026 if you live in 2024,but this is 2025 so yes,next year is 2026
- 1_hate_you 10mo agoyes
- 1_hate_you 10mo agoEYEKON/MONSTIEZ/MY/MIDZY/COES/ENGENE/STAY/BLINK OR ANY KPOP FANS IN HERE? IF THERE IS PLS REPLY IN BELOW THIS COMMENT :)
- SkibidiBoi67 10mo agohello guys
- SkibidiBoi67 10mo agosup
- SkibidiBoi67 10mo agomethionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylalanylprolylthreonylphenylalanylthreonylglutaminylprolylleucylglutaminylserylvalylvalylvalylleucylglutamylglycylserylthreonylalanylthreonylphenylalanylglutamylalanylhistidylisoleucylserylglycylphenylalanylprolylvalylprolylglutamylvalylseryltryptophylphenylalanylarginylaspartylglycylglutaminylvalylisoleucylserylthreonylserylthreonylleucylprolylglycylvalylglutaminylisoleucylserylphenylalanylserylaspartylglycylarginylalanyllysylleucylthreonylisoleucylprolylalanylvalylthreonyllysylalanylasparaginylserylglycylarginyltyrosylserylleucyllysylalanylthreonylasparaginylglycylserylglycylglutaminylalanylthreonylserylthreonylalanylglutamylleucylleucylvalyllysylalanylglutamylthreonylalanylprolylprolylasparaginylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylarginylleucylglutaminylserylmethionylthreonylvalylarginylglutaminylglycylserylglutaminylvalylarginylleucylglutaminylvalylarginylvalylthreonylglycylisoleucylprolylasparaginylprolylvalylvalyllysylphenylalanyltyrosylarginylaspartylglycylalanylglutamylisoleucylglutaminylserylserylleucylaspartylphenylalanylglutaminylisoleucylserylglutaminylglutamylglycylaspartylleucyltyrosylserylleucylleucylisoleucylalanylglutamylalanyltyrosylprolylglutamylaspartylserylglycylthreonyltyrosylserylvalylasparaginylalanylthreonylasparaginylserylvalylglycylarginylalanylthreonylserylthreonylalanylglutamylleucylleucylvalylglutaminylglycylglutamylglutamylglutamylvalylprolylalanyllysyllysylthreonyllysylthreonylisoleucylvalylserylthreonylalanylglutaminylisoleucylserylglutamylserylarginylglutaminylthreonylarginylisoleucylglutamyllysyllysylisoleucylglutamylalanylhistidylphenylalanylaspartylalanylarginylserylisoleucylalanylthreonylvalylglutamylmethionylvalylisoleucylaspartylglycylalanylalanylglycylglutaminylglutaminylleucylprolylhistidyllysylthreonylprolylprolylarginylisoleucylprolylprolyllysylprolyllysylserylarginylserylprolylthreonylprolylprolylserylisoleucylalanylalanyllysylalanylglutaminylleucylalanylarginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylserylprolylisoleucylarginylhistidylserylprolylserylprolylvalylarginylhistidylvalylarginylalanylprolylthreonylprolylserylprolylvalylarginylserylvalylserylprolylalanylalanylarginylisoleucylserylthreonylserylprolylisoleucylarginylserylvalylarginylserylprolylleucylleucylmethionylarginyllysylthreonylglutaminylalanylserylthreonylvalylalanylthreonylglycylprolylglutamylvalylprolylprolylprolyltryptophyllysylglutaminylglutamylglycyltyrosylvalylalanylserylserylserylglutamylalanylglutamylmethionylarginylglutamylthreonylthreonylleucylthreonylthreonylserylthreonylglutaminylisoleucylarginylthreonylglutamylglutamylarginyltryptophylglutamylglycylarginyltyrosylglycylvalylglutaminylglutamylglutaminylvalylthreonylisoleucylserylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylalanylalanylserylvalylserylalanylserylalanylseryltyrosylalanylalanylglutamylalanylvalylalanylthreonylglycylalanyllysylglutamylvalyllysylglutaminylaspartylalanylaspartyllysylserylalanylalanylvalylalanylthreonylvalylvalylalanylalanylvalylaspartylmethionylalanylarginylvalylarginylglutamylprolylvalylisoleucylserylalanylvalylglutamylglutaminylthreonylalanylglutaminylarginylthreonylthreonylthreonylthreonylalanylvalylhistidylisoleucylglutaminylprolylalanylglutaminylglutamylglutaminylvalylarginyllysylglutamylalanylglutamyllysylthreonylalanylvalylthreonyllysylvalylvalylvalylalanylalanylaspartyllysylalanyllysylglutamylglutaminylglutamylleucyllysylserylarginylthreonyllysylglutamylisoleucylisoleucylthreonylthreonyllysylglutaminylglutamylglutaminylmethionylhistidylvalylthreonylhistidylglutamylglutaminylisoleucylarginyllysylglutamylthreonylglutamyllysylthreonylphenylalanylvalylprolyllysylvalylvalylisoleucylserylalanylalanyllysylalanyllysylglutamylglutaminylglutamylthreonylarginylisoleucylserylglutamylglutamylisoleucylthreonyllysyllysylglutaminyllysylglutaminylvalylthreonylglutaminylglutamylalanylisoleucylmethionyllysylglutamylthreonylarginyllysylthreonylvalylvalylprolyllysylvalylisoleucylvalylalanylthreonylprolyllysylvalyllysylglutamylglutaminylaspartylleucylvalylserylarginylglycylarginylglutamylglycylisoleucylthreonylthreonyllysylarginylglutamylglutaminylvalylglutaminylisoleucylthreonylglutaminylglutamyllysylmethionylarginyllysylglutamylalanylglutamyllysylthreonylalanylleucylserylthreonylisoleucylalanylvalylalanylthreonylalanyllysylalanyllysylglutamylglutaminylglutamylthreonyliso