unclebucknasty

Understandable. But it doesn't seem completely unreasonable in this case, given that AI labs have clearly exhausted much compute, the all-out effort to build data centers is underway, and memory / other resources have been strained for some time.

Are you deliberately performing "the thing" in your reply as irony, or have you found a PT Cruiser that doesn't hallucinate?

This has all started to feel very Emperor's New Clothes-ish. "Well, if it's not working for you, then it's your fault. You're just not using it properly. You're not worthy of its wonders".

Not to say there's no value to be had. However, it's also been oversold and its error-proneness is a real problem.

But, it seems there's a steady stream of commenters and creators who are quick to remind us that it's never a problem with the tech. It's always a user problem.

Meanwhile, the errors are renamed "hallucinations", but let's not focus on those. In fact, if you just look right over here at this .md file...

You previously asserted that devs repeatedly ignored specific code quality instructions, which is clearly a fireable offense. You're now generalizing out to a vague concept of "sloppy code", which is not even quantifiable.

In any case, the point is that low quality code shouldn't be promoted as the acceptable goal for AI.

>tbf many human devs I've worked with don't...

OTOH, if someone insists on writing bad code—even after being advised otherwise—then they should expect to be out of a job.

Doesn't seem like "terminated junior developer" is the level of quality we should be accepting or promoting for AI.

I still have to remind Ai not to use the n+1 pattern in queries, and fight it to stop using inconsistent inline styles vs classes, even within a single page.

How are people getting this "waste of time not to use AI" and "generates 99% of my code" level of code quality?

I know people's response will likely be something, something, "add instructions to memory to not use n+1", etc. But if the Ai wants to generate code this bad, then it represents an overall quality risk that would require an infinite memory file.

So, it's no more remarkable than what LLMs do every day, but more remarkable than the solve claimed in the article?

So, none of this is noteworthy, but we're...noting it?

Not quibbling with you, personally. Quibbling more with the state of the hype.

>Now it's weird if an agent isn't writing 99% of your code.

>But September 2028? It might just be weird to run companies without AI management.

Coding is pattern matching and still requires a human in the loop to manage.

But, any human in the loop managing the "Ai management" is the manager, by definition.

Only way true Ai management is viable is via non LLM Ai, so completely depends on advancements there.

>That's potentially more impressive...

Serious question: why? Is it not just pointing it at its massive training corpus for a list of unsolved problems, and possibly even by degree of perceived difficulty? I'm trying to understand why finding the problem isn't a simple "search engine" style challenge, at which LLMs excel?

That's exactly what it feels like and it makes perfect sense, given the known compute constraints.

What do you mean? As in, they are reallocating compute away from previous models?

If so, I would think that would result in worsened performance, not quality (unless you are also suggesting they may be quantizing).

You mean like quantized?

>I thought models are getting dumber, but benchmarks were convincing opposite

>Opus 4.8 and Opus 5 seems worse models than Opus 4.6

After all we've heard about benchmark cheating, I'm earnestly not sure which or whether benchmarks are reliable anymore. But, beyond the models, I wonder if changes to their harnesses and/or instructions dumb them down. I have noticed models change their behavior, even when using the same version/effort. Sometimes for better. Sometimes for worse.

And, I have noticed a model go from really good to struggling. On 4.8 things were going well for a good stretch, so I did not switch to 5 when it came out. Even after hearing complaints about 5, 4.8 was still going well. Then, suddenly over the last few days, 4.8 seems to have nosedived. It feels similar now to the complaints I hear about 5.

In my case, it suddenly started ignoring my design guide, and introducing new fonts etc. It would even use several different fonts and sizes, as well as different margins for similar elements within the same page. It abandoned classes and started inlining styles. It started feeling random and, even after it realized it needed to go back to the design guide, it just continued with more of the same.

There seems to be something that happens after new model releases in both quality and behavior of previous models. It may not be immediately, but eventually there is frequently some regression.

>It's an empty point and a boring one and leads nowhere.

But, is it true?

>It means nothing...shallow...

Ironically, the entirety of your comment just repeats that the GP comment means nothing. There is no further explanation or "depth".