5 ms·
Not seeing this in my day to day, in fact the opposite.
by maxbaines 9mo ago
Not seeing this in my day to day, in fact the opposite.
- HendrikHensen 9mo agoCan you be more specific? E.g. refute something specific that the article mentions. Or are you only reacting to the title, not the article's contents?
- maxbaines 9mo agoI think as the article mentions garbage in garbage Out, we are more trusting and expect more. Coding assistants don't just need a good model, they need a good harness, these methods have also changed recently.
- ronbenton 9mo agoI think it should be on the article to prove its title. I hardly think presenting one test case to some different models substantiates the claim that "AI Coding Assistants Are Getting Worse." Note that I have no idea if the title is true or not, but it certainly doesn't follow from the content of the article alone.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- samrus 9mo agoWith llms being hard to test objectively, any claim made about them has to be substantiated with atleast anecdotes. The article presented some backing, if you dont think its enough you gotta present some of your own, or people cant talk you seriously
- ronbenton 9mo agoI did present my own evidence to support _my_ argument that the article is woefully lacking data to support its conclusion. It's not on me to try to make the counterargument (that AI coding assistants aren't getting worse) because that's not my opinion.
- llm_nerd 9mo agoThe article is ridiculous garbage. I knew the IEEE had fallen to irrelevance, but that their magazine now prints nonsense like this -- basically someone's ad wrapped in an incredibly lazy supposition -- is incredibly indicting. The guy wrote code depending upon an external data file (one that the LLM didn't have access to), with code that referred to a non-existing column. They then specifically prompted it to provide "completed code only, without commentary". This is idiotic. "Dear LLM, make a function that finds if a number is prime in linear time. Completed code only! No commentary!". Guy wanted to advertise his business and its adoption of AI, and wrote some foolish pablum to do so. How is this doing numbers here?
- Snuggly73 9mo agoI mean...the naive approach for a prime number check is o(n) which is linear. Probably u've meant constant time?
- dcchuck 9mo agoCouldn't agree more. I would expect older models make you feel this way. * Agents not trying to do the impossible (or not being an "over eager people pleaser" as it has been described) has significantly improved over the past few months. No wonder the older models fail. * "Garbage in, garbage out" - yes, exactly ;)