[antonvs]

> "if you're expecting AI, LLMs don't cut it". And I think he's basically right on that count.

This is one of those comments whose truth value depends entirely on a constantly shifting definition of “AI”.

The ability of modern models to functionally understand, answer questions, and make recommendations about software codebases is superhuman at this point, relative to most human software developers. What is that, if not artificial intelligence?

Perhaps you’re thinking of something more like AGI, but even there the terminology is loaded and ambiguous. The models are general enough to answer questions well on a vast range of subjects, and they exhibit understanding (again, functionally speaking this is true - whether someone wants to call them stochastic parrots is beside the point.) The appellation of “intelligence” applies just as well as in the coding case, it’s artificial, and it’s general.

> a worthwhile point to make.

I disagree. Without clear, justified definitions, it’s an incoherent, poorly specified point that seems to be driven by a desire to maintain a specific conclusion regardless of the evidence.