[noiv]

> Again we can observe a similar trend, with the latest GPT-5 already astonishingly close to human performance:

I have issues with "human performance" as single data point in times where education keeps to excel in some countries and degrades in others.

How far away are we from saying, better than "X percent of humans" ?

[kzrdude]

This reminds me -- very tenuously -- of how the shorthand for very good performance in the Python community is "like C". In the C community, we know that programs have different performance depending on algorithms chosen..

[Jtsummers]

> In the C community, we know that programs have different performance depending on algorithms chosen..

Yes. Only the C community knows this. What a silly remark.

Regarding the "Python community" remark, benchmarks against C and Fortran go back decades now. It's not just a Python thing. C people push it a lot, too.

[marcosdumay]

Nah, that part is ok. Human wherever you set it, human competence takes decades to really change, and those things have visible changes ever year or so.

The problem with all of the article's metrics is that they are all absolutely bullshit. It just throws claims like that AI can write full programs 50% of the time by itself in there and moves on like if it had any resemblance to what happens on the real world.