Comment by HendrikHensen
2 days ago
Can 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?
2 days ago
Can 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?
I 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.
With 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
I 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.
I 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.
The 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?
I mean...the naive approach for a prime number check is o(n) which is linear. Probably u've meant constant time?