3 ms·

If it's a mistake, it should course-correct. I agree that some of the smarter models are actually worse. I hope they take a model that's good enough--there are

• holgerschurig 1mo ago
  "If it's a mistake, it should course-correct" Maybe, or maybe not. The thing is, that "mistake" isn't something that is generally valid. For example, the enshittification of Google Search through the last 15 years seems to be a mistake --- but perhaps not from the money-making point of view of Google Shareholders. Likewise the enshittification of reddit --- we nerdy users see it as a mistake. But for them this intended enshittification probably increased revenue. It's the money, always the money! PR-speak like "customer satisfaction is our highest goal" is, like most PR-speak, a blatant lie. And so it can very well be the case that for coders the frontier models get worse, but they get better for other applications --- and that all of this is just driven by "how can we capitalize the most out of it", not satisfaction levels of programmers.
  • sejje 1mo ago
    I do think the timeline of web search getting fixed (yes, google is ASS) took a lot longer than I hoped, but seems like it's finally here. That being said, it's not a fair comparison to talk about 2011 google vs the AI market right now. There's so many labs I can't track them all, neck and neck in the lead. There was one true web search. And this is a more tangible quality difference, too. It's hard to know what a google search didn't return, especially as a layperson. It's not hard to see the model underperforming.