Models have improved significantly over the last 3 months. Yet people have been saying 'What if they've actually reached their limits by now?' for pushing 3 years.
If you want a model that's getting better at helping you as a tool (which for the record, I do), then you'd say in the last 3 months things got better between Gemini's long context performance, the return of Claude Opus, etc.
But if your goal post is replacing SWEs entirely... then it's not hard to argue we definitely didn't overcome any new foundational issues in the last 3 months, and not too many were solved in the last 3 years even.
In the last year the only real foundational breakthrough would be RL-based reasoning w/ test time compute delivering real results, but what that does to hallucinations + even Deepseek catching up with just a few months of post-training shows in its current form, the technique doesn't completely blow up any barriers that were standing the way people were originally touting it.
Overall models are getting better at things we can trivially post-train and synthesize examples for, but it doesn't feel like we're breaking unsolved problems at a substantially accelerated rate (yet.)
For me, improvement means no hallucination, but that only seems to have gotten worse and I'm interested to find out whether it's actually solvable at all.
Why do you care about hallucination for coding problems? You're in an agent loop; the compiler is ground truth. If the LLM hallucinates, the agent just iterates. You don't even see it unless you make the mistake of looking closely.
If the LLM hallucinates, then the code it produces is wrong. That wrong code isn't obviously or programmatically determinable as wrong, the agent has no way to figure out that it's wrong, it's not as if the LLM produces at the same time tests that identify that hallucinated code as being wrong. The only way that this wrong code can be identified as wrong is by the human user "looking closely" and figuring out that it is wrong.
You seem to have this fundamental belief that the code that's produced by your LLM is valid and doesn't need to be evaluated, line-by-line, by a human, before it can be committed?? I have no idea how you came to this belief but it certainly doesn't match my experience.
No, what's happening here is we're talking past each other.
An agent lints and compiles code. The LLM is stochastic and unreliable. The agent is ~200 lines of Python code that checks the exit code of the compiler and relays it back to the LLM. You can easily fool an LLM. You can't fool the compiler.
I didn't say anything about whether code needs to be reviewed line-by-line by humans. I review LLM code line-by-line. Lots of code that compiles clean is nonetheless horrible. But none of it includes hallucinated API calls.
Also, from where did this "you seem to have a fundamental belief" stuff come from? You had like 35 words to go on.
> If the LLM hallucinates, then the code it produces is wrong. That wrong code isn't obviously or programmatically determinable as wrong, the agent has no way to figure out that it's wrong, it's not as if the LLM produces at the same time tests that identify that hallucinated code as being wrong. The only way that this wrong code can be identified as wrong is by the human user "looking closely" and figuring out that it is wrong
The LLM can easily hallucinate code that will satisfy the agent and the compiler but will still fail the actual intent of the user.
> I review LLM code line-by-line. Lots of code that compiles clean is nonetheless horrible.
Indeed most code that LLMs generate compiles clean and is nevertheless horrible! I'm happy that you recognize this truth, but the fact that you review that LLM-generated code line-by-line makes you an extraordinary exception vs. the normal user, who generates LLM code and absolutely does not review it line-by-line.
> But none of [the LLM generated code] includes hallucinated API calls.
Hallucinated API calls are just one of many many possible kinds of hallucinated code that an LLM can generate, by no means does "hallucinated code" describe only "hallucinated API calls" -- !
When you say "the LLM can easily hallucinate code that will satisfy the compiler but still fail the actual intent of the user", all you are saying is that the code will have bugs. My code has bugs. So does yours. You don't get to use the fancy word "hallucination" for reasonable-looking, readable code that compiles and lints but has bugs.
I think at this point our respective points have been made, and we can wrap it up here.
You seem to be using "hallucinate" to mean "makes mistakes".
That's not how I use it. I see hallucination as a very specific kind of mistake: one where the LLM outputs something that is entirely fabricated, like a class method that doesn't exist.
The agent compiler/linter loop can entirely eradicate those. That doesn't mean the LLM won't make plenty of other mistakes that don't qualify as hallucinations by the definition I use!
It's newts and salamanders. Every newt is a salamander, not every salamander is a newt. Every hallucination is a mistake, not every mistake is a hallucination.
Linting isn't verification of correctness, and yes, you can fool the compiler, linters, etc. Work with some human interns, they are great at it. Agents will do crazy things to get around linting errors, including removing functionality.
My guy didn't you spend like half your life in the field where your job was to sift through code that compiled but nonetheless had bugs that you tried to exploit? How can you possibly have this belief about AI generated code?
I don't understand this question. Yes, I spent about 20 years learning the lesson that code is profoundly knowable; to start with, you just read it. What challenge do you believe AI-generated code presents to me?
> You seem to have this fundamental belief that the code that's produced by your LLM is valid and doesn't need to be evaluated, line-by-line, by a human, before it can be committed??
This is a mistaken understanding. The person you responded to has written on these thoughts already and they used memorable words in response to this proposal:
> Are you a vibe coding Youtuber? Can you not read code? If so: astute point. Otherwise: what the fuck is wrong with you?
It should be obvious that one would read and verify the code before they commit it. Especially if one works on a team.
The benchmarks also claim random 32B parameter models beat Claude 4 at coding, so we know just how much they matter.
It should be obvious to anyone who with a cursory interest in model training, you can't trust benchmarks unless they're fully private black-boxes.
If you can get even a hint of the shape of the questions on a benchmark, it's trivial to synthesize massive amounts of data that help you beat the benchmark. And given the nature of funding right now, you're almost silly not to do it: it's not cheating, it's "demonstrably improving your performance at the downstream task"
If you want a model that's getting better at helping you as a tool (which for the record, I do), then you'd say in the last 3 months things got better between Gemini's long context performance, the return of Claude Opus, etc.
But if your goal post is replacing SWEs entirely... then it's not hard to argue we definitely didn't overcome any new foundational issues in the last 3 months, and not too many were solved in the last 3 years even.
In the last year the only real foundational breakthrough would be RL-based reasoning w/ test time compute delivering real results, but what that does to hallucinations + even Deepseek catching up with just a few months of post-training shows in its current form, the technique doesn't completely blow up any barriers that were standing the way people were originally touting it.
Overall models are getting better at things we can trivially post-train and synthesize examples for, but it doesn't feel like we're breaking unsolved problems at a substantially accelerated rate (yet.)