| > now id like to ask you for evidence that none of these aspects have been improved You're arguing against a strawman. I'm not saying there haven't been incremental improvements for the benchmarks they're targeting. I've said that several times now. I'm sure you're seeing improvements in the tasks you're doing. But for me to say that there is more a shell game going on, I will have to see tools that do not hallucinate. A (claimed, who knows if that's right, they can't even get the physics questions or the charts right) reduction of 65% is helpful but doesn't make these things useful tools in the way they're claiming they are. > sorry i cant provide every single chat log ive ever had with these models to satisfy your vagueness-o-meter I'm not asking for all of them, you didn't even share one! Anyway, I just had this chat with the brand new state of the art Chat GPT 5: https://chatgpt.com/share/68956bf0-4d74-8001-88fe-67d5160436... Like I said, despite all the advances touted in the breathless press releases you're touting, the brand new model is just a bad roll away from like the models from 3 years ago, and until that isn't the case, I'll continue to believe that the technology has hit a wall. If it can't do this after how many years, then how is it supposed to be the smartest person I know in my pocket? How am I supposed to trust it, and build a foundation on it? |
Compilers were not and are not always perfect but i think ai has a long way to go before it passes that threshold. People act like it will in the next few years which the current trajectory strongly suggests that is not the case.