> I don’t know how to respond to that other than to ask you to quote the part of the blog post where the author described the language model running into a prob

> I don’t know how to respond to that other than to ask you to quote the part of the blog post where the author described the language model running into a problem that it could not fix and then described the details of how he manually intervened to fix the problem that the language model could not fix when you elaborate on your definition of “nothing” in that sentence. I suggest you re-read that and pay attention to how they're describing addressing these things by fixing the harness rather than solving the problems. You conveniently quoted the part that doesn't support your claim. > This is an answer to “why do you want someone to do that?” You have already established that you would like that to happen. It doesn’t answer “why would a real human being (who is not you) that isn’t impressed by the compiler that doesn’t work put their time into making Anthropic look good?” My bad for assuming the naysayer care about learning something or understanding the technology rather than looking for excuses to ignorantly bash it. > It is pretty common for tech companies to release free useful software. For example pytorch, react, Hack/hhvm etc. from Meta You entirely failed to address my question. > I saw that they put a bunch of resources into making something that is not useful and asked why they did not put a bunch of resources into that was useful. Surely they could make something that is both useful and made their model look good? They made something that made their model look good to the people who are actually likely to want to use their model. Aka, the customers actually providing the vast majority of their revenue. > I was asking if anyone had any substantive knowledge or informed opinion about whether it was one or the other but it seems like you’re saying it’s… both? They don’t want to make and release a useful tool and also they can not make and release a useful tool because this compiler, which is not useful, is the limit of what their model can achieve. No, I've said there's no value in it for them to spend money on tools that'd just get dismissed and that at the same time wouldn't provide useful data to their actual customers. > Like you want us all to know that they cannot and do not want to make any sort of useful tool. I've said nothing of the sort. Stop lying about what I've said. > That is your clearly-stated opinion about their desires and capabilities. Another lie. > And also you want these “naysayers”, who are not you, to put their time and effort into… also not making something useful? To prove… what? I'd like them to stop being blatantly intellectually dishonest and make trite unjustified claims because they don't understand why this project had value, and actually try to learn and inform themselves. It's naive to assume there's any honest curiosity lurking behind these shallow dismissals, I know, but I try to think the best of people until they prove their intent.