It seems to me that if they'd just about reached their upper limits in early 2024 agentic coding wouldn't be eating software development like it is now, and wasn't then.
replyLLMs are broader than just coding. The article states this particular Zitron claim was wrong, even at the time, because you can put an LLM on a loop until it generates code that compiles. Mitigating hallucinations (in the subset of applications with verifiable output) is not really the same as solving that category of problems outright. I could quibble about a number of things in this example alone, but that's not really my point.
replyI don't care if the claims are correct or incorrect. I just think the tone of the article is dishonest about its own impartiality and fairness, because it doesn't even attempt to interpret the claims in any way except the least favorable. If you want to be persuasive, you should refute a claim using the most favorable interpretation of that claim possible -- this does the opposite.
Yeah, I think this is fair criticism, and I definitely felt the pointedness in the tone as well.
replyOn the overly-literal / narrow thing, I think thats the culture around evaluating predictions overall. Like, all those posts around christmas where people make predictions and evaluate how last year went. The rigor is the norm.
I'm not familiar with the culture, but that sounds reasonable.
replyI'll quibble with the term rigor. I think the article contains the strictness that word implies, but not the thoroughness.