I wonder about this. I see two obvious possibilities (if we ignore bias):

1. The models are purposefully nerfed, before the release of the next model, similar to how Apple allegedly nerfed their older phones when the next model was out.

2. You are relying more and more on the models and are using your talent less and less. What you are observing is the ratio of your vs. the model’s work leaning more and more to the model’s. When a new model is released, it produces better quality code then before, so the work improves with it, but your talent keeps deteriorating at a constant rate.

I think it might have to do with how models work, and fundamental limits with them (yes, they're stochastic parrots, yes they confabulate).

Newer (past two years?) models have improved "in detail" - or as pragmatic tools - but they still don't deserve the anthropomorphism we subject them to because they appear to communicate like us (and therefore appear to think and reason, like us).

But the "holes" are painted over in contemporary models - via training, system prompts and various clever (useful!) techniques.

But I think this leads us to have great difficulty spotting the weak spots in a new, or slightly different model - but as we get to know each particular tool - each model - we get better at spotting the holes on that model.

Maybe it's poorly chosen variable names. A tendency to write plausible looking, plausibly named, e2e tests that turns out to not quite test what they appear to test at first glance. Maybe there's missing locking of resources, use of transactions, in sequencial code that appear sound - but end up storing invalid data when one or several steps fail...

In happy cases current LLMs function like well-intentioned junior coders enthusiasticly delivering features and fixing bugs.

But in the other cases, they are like patholically lying sociopaths telling you anything you want to hear, just so you keep paying them money.

When you catch them lying, it feels a bit like a betrayal. But the parrot is just tapping the bell, so you'll keep feeding it peanuts.

Well summarized.

We're also seeing that the people up top are using this to cull the herd.

Who controls that need for you?

All people think dogmatically, but religion does not prevent people from acting dogmatically in politics, sports, etc. It just doesn't. It never did.

Under normal circumstances I'd consider this a nit and decline to pick it, but the number of evangelists out there arguing the equivalent of "cure your alcohol addiction with crystal meth!" is too damn high.

Allow me to introduce you to Buddhism

Dogmatism is a spectrum and for too many people it's on the animal side of the scale.