Comment by mirekrusin

Not to take away from the main point of the article, which is true but:

It seems to be at intern level according to the author - not bad if you ask me, no?

Did he try to proceed as with an intern? ie. was it a dialogue? did he try to drop in this article into prompt and see what comes out?

For skeptics my best advise is – do your usual work and at the end drop in your whole work with prompt to find issues etc. – it will be net positive result, I promise.

And yes they do get better and it shouldn't get dismissed – the most fascinating part is precisely just that – not even their current state, but how fast they keep improving.

One part which always bothers me a bit with this type of arguments – why on earth are we assuming that human does it 100% correctly? Aren't humans also making similar mistakes?

IMHO there is some similarity with young geniuses – they get tons of stuff right and it's impressive however total, unexpected failures occur which feel weird – in my opinion it's a matter of focused training similar to how you'd teach a genius.

It's worth taking step back and recognizing in how many diverse contexts we're using (like now, today, not in 5 years) models like grok3 or claude3.7 – the goalpost seem to have moved to "beyond any human expert on all subjects".