[philipwhiuk]

Isn't the whole point of a better model that it should be better at understanding you than the previous one? So the same prompt should return a better answer.

Prompting differently to the new model seems entirely backwards when trying to determine if the model has improved.

[simonw]

It doesn't matter how good the models get, they still won't be able to act on unclear directions.

Learning to provide unambiguous, clear directions is a skill. A lot of people who report bad experiences with models aren't yet good at that skill.

More importantly though, the key to successful communication is having a good understanding of what the other side of the conversation already knows and understands.

Saying "use uv and inline script dependencies" won't mean anything to a model with a knowledge cutoff date prior to the launch of uv!

[yunwal]

It's perfectly possible to act on unclear directions. The correct course of action is asking clarifying questions.

[dasil003]

I think this is true when models were going from bad to pretty good like happened last year. But when they start to get good, and can work deeper and with more nuance, how you prompt also can change the results quite a bit. Note this is also true of asking smart humans to do things; personality and approaches vary, they don’t exist on a single axis continuum of quality