You’re missing the entire point I was making, attacking the veracity of some tests and metrics we use to measure aptitude. By all measures that we have in existence, LLMs perform at a college level (or higher). Maybe you disagree with those measures, cool. That’s completely irrelevant to the actual point I was making.
YOU made the claim. You said “there will likely always be a need for coders”. You have no idea how the burden of proof works. You made a claim, I said there was a lack of evidence. You can’t then go back and say “you lack evidence to reject my claim I made without evidence!”
The irony of this conversation is that any top level LLM (Opus, GPT4, Gemini advanced) wouldn’t have made such a rudimentary error in logic. Without even getting into the discussion of whether it “understands” what it’s saying, functionally, it wouldn’t have strung together the same incoherent message you put together.
You’re missing the entire point I was making, attacking the veracity of some tests and metrics we use to measure aptitude. By all measures that we have in existence, LLMs perform at a college level (or higher). Maybe you disagree with those measures, cool. That’s completely irrelevant to the actual point I was making.
YOU made the claim. You said “there will likely always be a need for coders”. You have no idea how the burden of proof works. You made a claim, I said there was a lack of evidence. You can’t then go back and say “you lack evidence to reject my claim I made without evidence!”
The irony of this conversation is that any top level LLM (Opus, GPT4, Gemini advanced) wouldn’t have made such a rudimentary error in logic. Without even getting into the discussion of whether it “understands” what it’s saying, functionally, it wouldn’t have strung together the same incoherent message you put together.