[dhorthy]

i guess to clarify my contention:

generic prompting like "review this code" or "make the architecture better" will raise the floor but cannot come close to human-quality code without humans understanding what code exists and what to ask for.

Obviously cursor and other labs have a stake in this going one direction, but I don't buy it, and I don't think you should either.

In fact, "Rebuild sqlite from spec" has all the problems with every other benchmark that I cited - model knows the whole problem up front and never has to iterate on the pile of slop it created cheating its way to a solution.

In any case, politely, I think we're mostly arguing vibes here and I'm not sure its going to get anywhere.

[monkpit]

And what percentage of the software in the world needs to come close to human-quality code? I’d argue the percentage of the whole is VERY low.

[regularfry]

The whole point is that if you don't maintain high quality, any software will degrade to the point where the factory breaks. "Human-quality" here isn't quite the right measure because human software factories also bog down in exactly this way.

[skydhash]

I’d say all of them. Most people use computers as tools or as entertainment platforms. While a bug may not be life threatening in most cases, it is annoying and stress generating.

[satvikpendem]

Fable writes code better than most humans can already so we've already surpassed human level coding. I think thinking otherwise is just coping for the job or industry.