> Your Google search results are wrong all the time too. The NYT writes things that are factually incorrect.

This is also very bad and people complain about these things all the fucking time.

> Why do we have such a high standard for these models

Because Altman and Amodei are defrauding investors out of hundreds of billions of dollars on the promise that they will replace the entire workforce. Of course people are going to point out the emperor has no clothes when half of our society is engaged in mass hysteria worshipping these fucking things as the next industrial revolution, diverting massive amounts of resources to them, and ruining HN with 10 articles on the front page per day about how software engineering is dead.

> This is also very bad and people complain about these things all the fucking time.

So at worst these AI tools are as bad as the existing system. Worth complaining about? Absolutely. Worth holding to much higher standards? Nah I don't think so. Not at this stage at least. And folks are just disappointing themselves by setting up straw men expectations.

These tools are non-deterministic systems (like humans) which sometimes don't do exactly what you want (like humans) but are also extremely fast, much cheaper (for now), and have domain knowledge generation that is much broader than any single human has. Like anything else, there are pros and cons.

> ruining HN with 10 articles on the front page per day about how software engineering is dead.

Even this article, which is theoretically about playing games on a MacBook and not about AI, has devolved into AI discussions. It's honestly kind of tiring.

I suppose the article invites it by putting an AI blurb up top, and I suppose I'm also not helping by adding my own comment, but _still_.