Not seeing this in my day to day, in fact the opposite.

HendrikHensen 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

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?

▲

ronbenton a day ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

samrus a day ago | parent | next [-]

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

	▲	ronbenton a day ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

maxbaines a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

llm_nerd a day ago | parent | prev [-]

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?

	▲	Snuggly73 a day ago \| parent [-]
		I mean...the naive approach for a prime number check is o(n) which is linear. Probably u've meant constant time?

▲

dcchuck a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Couldn'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 ;)