To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to effectively use AI. The methodology is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical computer science, most of an LLM’s capabilities will go over a typical user’s head. There’s also the model’s nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into its training data - its internal architecture draws heavily from statistical mechanics, for instance. The true users understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these limitations, to realize that they’re not just bugs—they say something deep about an AI's operational boundaries. As a consequence, people who dislike using AI for coding truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn’t appreciate, for instance, the nuance in an LLM’s inability to debug a program, which itself is a cryptic reference to the halting problem. I’m smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as the LLM fails to get an overview of a repository larger than its context window. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂 And yes, by the way, I DO have a favorite transformer architecture. And no, you cannot see it. It’s for the ladies’ eyes only- and even they have to demonstrate that they’re within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothing personnel kid 😎

I’m not surprised by the results, but it’s hardly a fair assessment of the usefulness of AI.

It's a more than fair assessment of the claims of usefulness of AI which are more or less "fire all your devs this machine is better than them already"

"This study that I didn't read that has a real methodology for evaluating LLM usefulness instead of just trusting what AI bros say about LLM usefulness is wrong, they should just trust us, bros", that's you

Hey tech bro! how much money did you loose on NFTs? 😂