Hfuffzehn

While that might might be true nowadays, Anthropic has started to work very hard on fixing that.

They just started with it not helping with software security.

Agreed.

Demoralization in e.g. Germany has reached insane levels.

This is a problem of the direction things are going. Things are getting worse and that is causing the demoralization, not the absolute level of "how good things still are".

I never felt more violated than when a coworker 15 years younger than me started to touch my work laptop screen.

I mean, she was right, it turned out to be a touch screen, but really who does something like that?

I think you are misapprehending the ruling.

I someone would put the libellous statement into Google Translate in English and the LLM spits out the German translation would that be a crime from Google?

My point is exactly that the court has not decided more than it has decided: If it is a search in a search engine it is a crime.

The argument starts with

search engine -> search terms -> search command

Google accepted the argument up to that point. Then they argued that they are not responsible for the search result. The court argued that what they did was not a search (or not protected the way a search is).

The argument whether Gemini, ChatGPT or Claude are search engines and whether a prompt is search terms is a different argument. Certainly an interesting one, but not what that court looked at.

It's not just about the output, the input matters also.

Sure that could be the worst case. But then we are in the case law vs. continental law debate for lawyers.

When I wrote "Gemini is not illegal" it would have been more correct to say that the court has not decided about Gemini but specifically about search.

And I do think it makes sense to distinguish between explicitly chatting with an LLM and entering something in the search bar people have used for decades now.

Yes, the monopoly is not relevant for the court.

It is relevant for Google though, because they want to transfer it to another product.

And the court is saying that whatever that new product is, Google is not allowed to mislead the public by pretending it is search.

If I get it correctly I like the ruling.

So Google has established a product called Search. For that product rules have been established. Google has monopolized that product.

Now Google is replacing that product with a new product. But they keep calling it the same thing. Because they want to keep their monopoly.

That is what has been deemed illegal. Gemini is not illegal. Pretending the worst version of Gemini is Search is illegal, because it breaks the rules established for Search.

But IANAL.

This is a very good comment. But notice how even in software engineering there is still disagreement about these structural safeguards.

So yes, we can say the LLM created bad code when it does not compile or fails prewritten tests.

But experts might disagree what good comments, good cohesion, appropriate use of design patterns, appropriate test coverage or clear variable names are.

So what are we suppossed to train the LLMs towards? Somebody still has to decide what "good" is.

I agree. But notice that you assume that there is a metric with which you can messure improvement. Which is fine if you are measuring against your personal taste.

But it might be that the optimization target itself has a ceiling. If you're training toward human approval ratings from a broad population, you converge toward what median preference selects for. The plateau is baked into what you're measuring against.

The first time I was impressed by AI coding was when I pointed it at some switch case monster code and told it to replace it with a strategy pattern.

And it did just fine.

So no matter what you think about vibe coding, using AI for these slightly more complicated use cases is genuinely useful.