sithamet

> The best performing model scores a 66.8. So does this prove LLMs can “understand” the code? I would argue that the answer to this is “no”.

By this benchmark, the human who makes mistake in an intendedly obscure spec does not understand the code either.

But you did show these pesky stochastic parrots their place!

But they can simply decompile the language, should it desire, so we need to think deeper

My next post will be "I built a programming language that LLMs can't use (REALLY)", but it's in a private repo so clunkers can't get to it

Humans actually do exactly the same, google Mariupol or Bucha or what drones (human-piloted) are doing in Cherson, so the city is all covered by fishnet. Machines delay the moment people start dying; true not only for military applications btw.

Humans actually do exactly the same, google Mariupol or Bucha. Machines delay the moment people start dying. Good attempt in reasoning though.

Also, as someone from a country that has been attacked and dragged into war, I would prefer machines fighting (and being destroyed autonomously) rather than my people dying, nor people from any nation that came to help.

That's as Anthropic as it gets if your nerve expands a little bit further than your HOA.

What a shame, indeed. Chinese and Russians would never do something like that and hurt either their or your people, too

> everyone has access to the same models and basic thought processes

Why haven't Warners acquired Netflix then, but the other way around? Even though they had access to the same labor market, a human LLM replacement?

I think real economics is a little more complex than the "basic economics" referenced in your reply.

This does not negate the possibility that enterprises will double down on replacing everyone with AI, though. But it does negate the reasoning behind the claim and the predictions made.