upvote

points

by uproarchat2 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby 0x4572 hours ago|
next
[-]
Literally any coding agent marking material:

- https://cognition.com/

- https://openai.com/index/introducing-the-codex-app/

- https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-3-7-sonnet

anthropic specifically brags about how good claude code is every annoucement of a new model. I will surrender that none of them claim its "to perfection", but IMO its implied because no one would claim that their model one-shots any issue to dog shit quality.

reply
upvoteby infinite_spin1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
- https://openai.com/index/introducing-the-codex-app/

no where does this document suggest that codex can "one shot everything to perfection with just a prompt". It describes using a prompt plus agent skills (which are essentially many other prompts) to develop a playable game.. nothing about it being perfect or anything more than being in a playable state.

reply
upvoteby joshribakoff4 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Oh please, you sound so disingenuous, the claim wasn’t that the documents contained a specific phrase. You’re moving the goal posts. Their name is literally a play on anthropomorphising the models, such as… the ceo going on tv shows and repeatedly saying the models may be conscious and they may start nuclear wars, etc.
reply
upvoteby hombre_fatal1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Seems like motte and bailey fallacy. They say their models are good (the motte), therefore their models must one-shot everything to perfection (the bailey).

Besides, other people's claims about something doesn't give you license to abandon all critical thinking. Though it's evident they don't claim what you say they are.

reply
upvoteby 0x4571 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That's irrelevant. Questions was why people assume somthing, and answer is because that's how it advertised.

To be clear that's not what I'm thinking, even Fable 5 produces some hilariously bad results under some conditions and sonnet 5 produced great results under others.

reply
upvoteby hombre_fatal1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> because that's how it advertised.

But you didn't provide the evidence for that. You shared some links and then admitted they didn't claim it.

It kinda seems like "because I think they're a little too positive about their product, I can set my expectations to anything I want and la-la-la it's their fault."

And I don't see the problem with agents building test scaffolding as they go. It might be too defensive at times, like testing a shell script you don't run often, but big deal. It's kinda cool imo, and it's trivial to make it stop.

reply
upvoteby Lalabadie2 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
I don't really think they advertise "Create your app idea in one weekend night" and assume the general public will mentally add "... but hire an experienced developer to supervise the process".
reply