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.

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?