OpenAI still leads in agentic terminal coding, but by less.
Claude can plan the work and then run hundreds of parallel subagents in a single session (and with Opus 4.8, the agents can run for even longer)
That’s one way to turn profitable before the IPO, I guess. Goodbye tokens.
It’s not that people hate AI it’s just not a priority in most people’s lives. It would be really nice if you enthusiast people would understand that there are entire industries that aren’t coding. I don’t work in programming so I don’t care how good this AI is at programming. Every time someone comes along and sings the praises of AI it’s always through the narrow lens of “it can code good” I have no idea whether or not it can code good, but regardless what does that mean to logistics agent or a spec writer?
For everyone who isn’t terminally online AI is just an interesting toy with limited practical applications, especially with how expensive it is.
I can 10x my performance right now by just installing a text snippet editor and learning how to use mail merge. I have tried using AI in my job role and outside of essentially using it as a fancy Google search it’s useless to me.
To begin with, I wouldn’t say I’m an enthusiast, but I do find the breakthroughs in LLM tech the recent years to be interesting. I sometimes wonder how we got so blasé that a computer acing the Turing test is passed off as “spicy autocomplete, ho hum”.
I also think you’ll find that many people on Lemmy do hate AI to a worrying degree. Just look at the reception this and other posts about it get here, in a technology community, where you’d expect news about one of the most sci-fi-like (to me, at least) technologies to be welcome.
To the rest of your comment, I must say I find it strange to come to this community and complain that you find news about LLMs (a technology) useful for coding (also a technology), arguing that it’s not interesting to you. To each their own, I suppose.
Yeah it’s interesting as long as you can completely disregard all of the negative impacts but if you disregard all of the negative impacts and I would argue you’re not assessing the technology in a fair manner.
The Turing test was also designed back in the day when a computer was just a big box in a room. An AI passing the Turing test is just something to throw at the media, it’s not a meaningful experiment. The Apple 2 was able to pass the Turing test.
I’m sorry, but I don’t agree with your first point at all. Things can have negative sides and still be interesting.
The Turing test, as I interpret it at least, is more of a philosophical than a technical thing, trying to provide a way to evaluate the thinking ability of someone or -thing without being able to look at its innards. I’ve always found it fascinating, but I can understand if people disagree (just don’t drag the Chinese room into it). However, if you don’t think a conversation with Claude is more interesting than a faux psychiatrist session with ELIZA, I don’t know where we could go from there 🤷
Yeah it was interesting 4 years ago when it was brand new. But I’m bored of that now and I wanted to do something useful.
It’s a product that’s been around for half a decade and its own creators cannot tell me why I should use it. How does that not set up alarm bells in your head?
I feel like it gets more intrinsically interesting the better it gets, even when the initial shock has faded a bit, but tastes vary of course.
The LLM creators won’t shut up about what we can use it for and why. Some of those use cases actually work fairly well, like coding, so that part doesn’t really trigger any alarms.
What I don’t see is how they intend to make actual money when open weight models catch up in the next months, but if we can lose the frontier labs and keep the current abilities available that’s fine by me (apart from the whole “possible collapse of Western economy”, that is)