[dhorthy]

I read it. i agree this is out of touch. Not because the things its saying are wrong, but because the things its saying have been true for almost a year now. They are not "getting worse" they "have been bad". I am staggered to find this article qualifies as "news".

If you're going to write about something that's been true and discussed widely online for a year+, at least have the awareness/integrity to not brand it as "this new thing is happening".

[flumpcakes]

Perhaps the advertising money from the big AI money sinks is running out and we are finally seeing more AI scepticism articles.

[minimaxir]

> They are not "getting worse" they "have been bad".

The agents available in January 2025 were much much worse than the agents available in November 2025.

[Snuggly73]

Yes, and for some cases no.

The models are gotten very good, but I rather have an obviously broken pile of crap that I can spot immediately, than something that is deep fried with RL to always succeed, but has subtle problems that someone will lgtm :( I guess its not much different with human written code, but the models seem to have weirdly inhuman failures - like, you would just skim some code, cause you just cant believe that anyone can do it wrong, and it turns out to be.

[Snuggly73]

I mean "have been bad" doesnt exclude "getting worse" right :)