144
AI still doesn't work very well, businesses are faking it, and a reckoning is coming
(www.theregister.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2026
144 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
2534 readers
45 users here now
Tech related news and discussion. Link to anything, it doesn't need to be a news article.
Let's keep the politics and business side of things to a minimum.
Rules
No memes
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
Wow.
2000x worse, huh?
I mean... I'm impressed that it runs, passes unti tests, and 'works', but is also that much worse.
That's a kind of achievement.
Not a useful kind, but... impressively bad.
Also it’s probably incredibly difficult to optimize a huge LLM-generated codebase since there are no human authors who know it intimately to begin with.
Having a stable set of individuals with a deep understanding of 'how things work' is so totally anathema to the modern paradigm of 'every coder is is a contractor, basically'.
Everybody wants to do software development, but doesn't want to foster software developers.
So, they try and build machine god to replace us, and as most of us predicted... didn't work out so well, but goddamnit, they'll burn a trillion dollars before they let their ego take a hit.
... oh well, I guess.
@artifex
It's even worse than that: profilers rub your code 20-100 tubes slower, which, if performance is OKish to begin with is workable. 2000x too slow? Can't even profile!
The 2000x difference is for more complex workloads. It has ok performance for very simple queries.
So not quite as bad as the headline number suggests. But still very bad and not a viable alternative.
I mean, 2x would already be unacceptable.
I mean, on the one hand, its SQLite.
On the other hand...
... arguably the entire point of a database language is to efficiently handle complex workloads.
And then when you remember that... this was a project, in development, that cost time, money, energy, made RAM prices go up by maybe ¢22 per GB all on its own...
This is an insane negative return on investment.
Like imagine if you paid the same amount of money to ... people, a contracted firm, and they handed you this.
You'd potentially be firing them or suing them for breach of contract, blacklisting them as far and wide as you could.
I couldn't find if they were able to fix the identified bugs, seems like an important detail. How far does a month of LLM plus a month of talent get you?
They probably dont care. They did this to generate headlines about how capable their AI is. It has served its purpose. So long as all of the investors only saw the propaganda articles the line will only go up and they can abandon this project.
The propaganda articles about how the LLM missed critical logic and that it performs worse than SQLite?
I'm less less interested in the extreme skepticism or hype.
The project is an impressive demonstration from a pure technical perspective. I couldn't imagine 5 years ago a model being able to rewrite such a complex project.