6 ms·

I don't think intelligence is increasing. Arbitrary benchmarks don't reflect real world usage. Even with all the context it could possibly have, these models st

by asdev 1y ago

I don't think intelligence is increasing. Arbitrary benchmarks don't reflect real world usage. Even with all the context it could possibly have, these models still miss/hallucinate things. Doesn't make them useless, but saying context is the bottleneck is incorrect.

reclusive-sky 1y ago
I agree, I often see Opus 4.1 and GPT5 (Thinking) make astoundingly stupid decisions with full confidence, even on trivial tasks requiring minimal context. Assuming they would make better decisions "if only they had more context" is a fallacy
- alchemist1e9 1y ago
  Is there a good example you could provide of that? I just haven’t seen that personally so I’d be interested in any examples on these current models. I’m sure we all remember in the early days lots of examples of stupidity being posted and it was interesting. It be great if people kept doing that so we could get a better sense of which types of problems they are failing with astounding levels of stupidity on.
  - scoopdiwhoop 1y ago
    One example I ran into recently is asking Gemini CLI to do something that isn't possible: use multiple tokens in a Gemini CLI custom command (https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/blob/main/docs/cli/commands.md#custom-commands https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/blob/main/docs/c...). It pretended it was possible and came up with a nonsense .toml defining multiple arguments in a way it invented so it couldn't be read, even after multiple rounds of "that doesn't work, Gemini can't load this." So in any situation where something can't actually be done my assumption is that it's just going to hallucinate a solution. Has been good for busywork that I know how to do but want to save time on. When I'm directing it, it works well. When I'm asking it to direct me, it's gonna lead me off a cliff if I let it.
  - theshrike79 1y ago
    I've had every single LLM I tried (Opus, Sonnet, GPT-5-(codex) and Grok light) all tell me that Go embeds[0] support relative paths UPWARDS in the tree. They all have a very specific misunderstanding. Go embeds _do_ support relative paths like: //go:embed files/hello.txt But they DO NOT support any paths with ".." in it //go:embed ../files/hello.txt is not correct. All confidently claimed that .. is correct and will work and tried to make it work multipled different ways until I pointed each to the documentation. [0] https://pkg.go.dev/embed https://pkg.go.dev/embed
    - alchemist1e9 1y ago
      I don’t really find that so surprising or particularly stupid. I was hoping to learn about serious issues with bad logic or reasoning not missing dots on i’s type stuff. I can’t remember the example but there was another frequent hallucination that people were submitting bug reports that it wasn’t working, so the project looked at it and realized well actually that kinda would make sense and maybe our tool should work like that, and changed the code to work just like the LLM hallucination expected! Also in general remember human developers hallucinate ALL THE TIME and then realize it or check documentation. So my point is I feel hallucinations are not particularly important or bother me as much as flawed reasoning.
      - theshrike79 1y ago
        Yep, LLMs are "just" statistical guessing machine. And if an LLM guesses (hallucinates) a specific method for your API, it really should have it - statistically speaking =)
chankstein38 1y ago
Agreed. I feel like, in the case of GPT models, 4o was better in most ways than 5 has been. I'm not seeing increases in quality of anything between the two 5 feels like a major letdown honestly. I am constantly reminding it what we're doing lol
Jweb_Guru 1y ago
Gemini 2.5 Pro is okay if you ask it to work on a very tiny problem. That's about it for me, the other models don't even create a convincing facsimile of reasoning.

by asdev 1y ago

reclusive-sky 1y ago

I agree, I often see Opus 4.1 and GPT5 (Thinking) make astoundingly stupid decisions with full confidence, even on trivial tasks requiring minimal context. Assuming they would make better decisions "if only they had more context" is a fallacy

alchemist1e9 1y ago
Is there a good example you could provide of that? I just haven’t seen that personally so I’d be interested in any examples on these current models. I’m sure we all remember in the early days lots of examples of stupidity being posted and it was interesting. It be great if people kept doing that so we could get a better sense of which types of problems they are failing with astounding levels of stupidity on.
- scoopdiwhoop 1y ago
  One example I ran into recently is asking Gemini CLI to do something that isn't possible: use multiple tokens in a Gemini CLI custom command (https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/blob/main/docs/cli/commands.md#custom-commands https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/blob/main/docs/c...). It pretended it was possible and came up with a nonsense .toml defining multiple arguments in a way it invented so it couldn't be read, even after multiple rounds of "that doesn't work, Gemini can't load this." So in any situation where something can't actually be done my assumption is that it's just going to hallucinate a solution. Has been good for busywork that I know how to do but want to save time on. When I'm directing it, it works well. When I'm asking it to direct me, it's gonna lead me off a cliff if I let it.
- theshrike79 1y ago
  I've had every single LLM I tried (Opus, Sonnet, GPT-5-(codex) and Grok light) all tell me that Go embeds[0] support relative paths UPWARDS in the tree. They all have a very specific misunderstanding. Go embeds _do_ support relative paths like: //go:embed files/hello.txt But they DO NOT support any paths with ".." in it //go:embed ../files/hello.txt is not correct. All confidently claimed that .. is correct and will work and tried to make it work multipled different ways until I pointed each to the documentation. [0] https://pkg.go.dev/embed https://pkg.go.dev/embed
  - alchemist1e9 1y ago
    I don’t really find that so surprising or particularly stupid. I was hoping to learn about serious issues with bad logic or reasoning not missing dots on i’s type stuff. I can’t remember the example but there was another frequent hallucination that people were submitting bug reports that it wasn’t working, so the project looked at it and realized well actually that kinda would make sense and maybe our tool should work like that, and changed the code to work just like the LLM hallucination expected! Also in general remember human developers hallucinate ALL THE TIME and then realize it or check documentation. So my point is I feel hallucinations are not particularly important or bother me as much as flawed reasoning.
    - theshrike79 1y ago
      Yep, LLMs are "just" statistical guessing machine. And if an LLM guesses (hallucinates) a specific method for your API, it really should have it - statistically speaking =)

chankstein38 1y ago

Agreed. I feel like, in the case of GPT models, 4o was better in most ways than 5 has been. I'm not seeing increases in quality of anything between the two 5 feels like a major letdown honestly. I am constantly reminding it what we're doing lol

Jweb_Guru 1y ago

Gemini 2.5 Pro is okay if you ask it to work on a very tiny problem. That's about it for me, the other models don't even create a convincing facsimile of reasoning.