State-of-the-art models rely on late-1800s and early-1900s print books for high-quality training data, and those books use ~30% more em-dashes than contemporary English prose. That’s why it’s so hard to get models to stop using em-dashes: because they learned English from texts that were full of them.

That sounds really plausible – I associate the em-dash with old books and stilted prose, like Sherlock Holmes stories

Yeah, I’ve had that existential crisis this Spring, and so have other devs I know. There’s still a good way to go, but unless LLMs hit a hard limit on cognition I tend to share the author’s feelings.

alluded to the “Ukrainian scenario.”

“Unless you do as I say, I’ll shoot myself in the foot again”

No oil changes at the very least. There are also around a zillion moving parts in a gas engine, most of which can wear.

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 🤷

That’s a waste, when they could just write to you in your native Russian

The way you act, the only supportable conclusion is that you’re deliberately trying to make leftists look bad. You’re a bad caricature of even a tankie.

That remains to be seen. If open weight models get good enough and efficient enough, I don’t see what moat Anthropic, OpenAI, et al have. Maybe they can fade away so we can buy hardware again, and still reap the benefits of Turing-certified “autocomplete”.

Pricing is an issue, yes - the open-weight models aren’t on par with claude and codex yet. I have hopes that six months to a year can bring them to the level of current frontier models, and if so I think that’s probably good enough for most users, including me. How Anthropic and OpenAI intend to make money at that point, I couldn’t tell you, but I don’t see an actual downside there :)

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.

Gpt 5.4 xhigh isn’t too bad for automated reviews and the like, and 5.5 is fairly efficient for interactive coding. I prefer those to Claude and opus, the Anthropic models feel like they’re trying to hard to be human to me, but that’s personal preference I guess.

Yeah, it’s not free (or the free models aren’t good enough), but the consensus at work is that this is a potential game changer, and we need to experiment to see what works and what doesn’t. So, the budget is there until things settle, and afterwards if things work out.

I know no one here wants to hear it, but the newest models from Anthropic and OpenAI are not bad coders with proper direction. If used correctly they can be positive force multipliers for developers, and used incorrectly they can do a lot of damage.

Note that this goes for developers with some experience. If you try to use an LLM in place of experience, or use it as a shortcut to try to gain experience, it turns into a negative multiplier really quickly, and you probably build bad habits that are hard to kick.

I’m not sure what the future of coding looks like, but I’ll be very surprised if AI in its current or a future incarnation is not involved somehow. How to learn coding correctly for that I don’t know, but looking at the junior devs I know, I am sure they will figure it out and grow into AI-native senior devs in due time.

No u

https://www.spreeder.com/

Until they’ve thrown out the invaders.

Gotcha :)

Do you not?

Gpt-5.5 high is not half bad at coding

As another technologist, I have to remind everyone that unless you subscribe to some rather fringe theories, humans are also based on standard physics.

Which is math. All the way down.