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.

  • unpossum@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      21 hours ago

      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.

      • unpossum@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        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 🤷

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          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?