I'd have to ask for you to be more specific, otherwise, to take your answer at face value, it comes across as a contradiction.

> [Opus 5's output] is beyond the comprehension of virtually all engineers and developers

That would make it pretty bad? The key defining quality of good software, is clarity, and the ability to simplify a complex problem to the point of it seeming trivial.

> Math, science, and engineering are all contained in one model. We may be experts in one field. The model is an expert in everything that humans know.

The bar here should absolutely be to judge this against the expert level within each domain. I have time and time come across LLM output being woefully underwhelming in every single request where I am an expert. For all areas that I am not, it sure seems plausible. It is far more likely than not, that it is equally inadequate in the areas I lack the necessary knowledge to tell.

If the AI is being subpar in every field and category compared to an expert in said respective field, then, what a strange gauge of a tool's usefulness. Are we attributing higher value because a single model is "attempting to solve all knowledge and fields at the same time", why is that of any importance, or excuse?

We should not define "intelligence" as how effectively it can convince a non-expert of something being plausible. That sounds like the absolute worst tradeoff. You'd have to waste the experts time in filtering and refuting incorrect postulations that are cheep to generate. The perfect storm for bullshit asymmetry.

I don't think that's because of its "intelligence". It speaks obtuse techbro-ese: stringing together words that sound smart to obscure the simplicity of the thing it's describing. In many ways it's the opposite of intelligence.

Opus 5 and Fable 5 in particular suffer from this issue at worse level than most models in the same class.

You mean Fable 5 right? Opus 5 makes lots of stupid mistakes about anything that requires any domain knowledge.