> it's also notable that openai prioritizes coding abilities, whereas meta treats it more as an afterthought (separating out codellama, and zuck confirmed that

> it's also notable that openai prioritizes coding abilities, whereas meta treats it more as an afterthought (separating out codellama, and zuck confirmed that its not impt for him in the dwarkesh interview). yes we know code corpuses improve general reasoning for llms, but i'm -still- not aware of a definitive paper studying this phenomenon (pls reply here if you do) IME this approach seems to be working. I don't have a paper, but I can confirm that I barely use GPT-4 anymore. Except for code, Gemini 1.5-Pro just performs better. For complex code, Claude Opus is the winner. For quick/cheapish stuff, Claude Sonnet. For really quick/cheap/easy stuff, GPT-3.5. Often I will still give GPT-4 a try just to compare with the others, and there's just nothing at excels at. It's neither cheap nor the best at anything, just "good" at everything. This may make sense for them because they have to cater to the largest audience. So they'd rather be #2 for every task than #1 for one task and #3 for the other. But for serious users, or even enterprise use, it means there's no point.