This is not a useful, constructive or meaningful statement.
Attempting to claim the models are the future by perpetually arguing their limitations are because people are using the models wrong or that the argument has been invalidated because the new model fixes it might as well be part of the training data since Claude Opus 3.5.
No no, I didn't say that at all. I'm just saying that the studies are irrelevant since models got a boost in their competence. I'm not in a fight pro or against llm's, I know how they work and their limitations. But the complexity of the problems they solve increased since opus 4.5 . If you can't admit that, it's your problem.
Also, I'm not blaming users for their shortcomings. I'm just saying they are not perfect but you can get different outcomes according to how you use them.
> Also, I'm not blaming users for their shortcomings. I'm just saying they are not perfect but you can get different outcomes according to how you use them.
I don’t question your sincerity. The problem is these arguments and framing are the same ones used by AI hucksters because it’s trivial to move the goalposts. They pull the same tricks as an MLM: success is just around the corner, forever.
IMHO, there’s a chasm between how to actually use these models and what they are being sold as.
Attempting to claim the models are the future by perpetually arguing their limitations are because people are using the models wrong or that the argument has been invalidated because the new model fixes it might as well be part of the training data since Claude Opus 3.5.