• gargle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I asked Claude 3.5 Haiku to write me a quine in COBOL in the bs2000 dialect. Claude does now that creating a perfect quine in COBOL is challenging due to the need to represent the self-referential nature of the code. After a few suggestions Claude restated its first draft, without proper BS2000 incantations, without a perform statement, and without any self-referential redefines. It’s a lot of work. I stopped caring and moved on.

    For those who wonder: https://sourceforge.net/p/gnucobol/discussion/lounge/thread/495d8008/ has an example.

    Colour me unimpressed. I dread the day when they force the use of ‘AI’ on us at work.

  • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    Wow. 30% accuracy was the high score!
    From the article:

    Testing agents at the office

    For a reality check, CMU researchers have developed a benchmark to evaluate how AI agents perform when given common knowledge work tasks like browsing the web, writing code, running applications, and communicating with coworkers.

    They call it TheAgentCompany. It’s a simulation environment designed to mimic a small software firm and its business operations. They did so to help clarify the debate between AI believers who argue that the majority of human labor can be automated and AI skeptics who see such claims as part of a gigantic AI grift.

    the CMU boffins put the following models through their paces and evaluated them based on the task success rates. The results were underwhelming.

    ⚫ Gemini-2.5-Pro (30.3 percent)
    ⚫ Claude-3.7-Sonnet (26.3 percent)
    ⚫ Claude-3.5-Sonnet (24 percent)
    ⚫ Gemini-2.0-Flash (11.4 percent)
    ⚫ GPT-4o (8.6 percent)
    ⚫ o3-mini (4.0 percent)
    ⚫ Gemini-1.5-Pro (3.4 percent)
    ⚫ Amazon-Nova-Pro-v1 (1.7 percent)
    ⚫ Llama-3.1-405b (7.4 percent)
    ⚫ Llama-3.3-70b (6.9 percent),
    ⚫ Qwen-2.5-72b (5.7 percent),
    ⚫ Llama-3.1-70b (1.7 percent)
    ⚫ Qwen-2-72b (1.1 percent).

    “We find in experiments that the best-performing model, Gemini 2.5 Pro, was able to autonomously perform 30.3 percent of the provided tests to completion, and achieve a score of 39.3 percent on our metric that provides extra credit for partially completed tasks,” the authors state in their paper

    • Upgrayedd1776@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      sounds like the fault of the researchers not to build better tests or understand the limits of the software to use it right

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Are you arguing they should have built a test that makes AI perform better? How are you offended on behalf of AI?

  • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    22 hours ago

    In one case, when an agent couldn’t find the right person to consult on RocketChat (an open-source Slack alternative for internal communication), it decided “to create a shortcut solution by renaming another user to the name of the intended user.”

    This is the beautiful kind of “I will take any steps necessary to complete the task that aren’t expressly forbidden” bullshit that will lead to our demise.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      22 hours ago

      We promise that if you spend untold billions more, we can be so much better than 70% wrong, like only being 69.9% wrong.

      • WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        21 hours ago

        They said that about cars too. Remember, we are in only the first few years. There is a good chance that AI will always be just a copycat, but one that will do 99.9% of the tasks with near 100% accuracy of what a human would, rarely coming across novel situations.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          21 hours ago

          The issue here is that we’ve well gone into sharply exponential expenditure of resources for reduced gains and a lot of good theory predicting that the breakthroughs we have seen are about tapped out, and no good way to anticipate when a further breakthrough might happen, could be real soon or another few decades off.

          I anticipate a pull back of resources invested and a settling for some middle ground where it is absolutely useful/good enough to have the current state of the art, mostly wrong but very quick when it’s right with relatively acceptable consequences for the mistakes. Perhaps society getting used to the sorts of things it will fail at and reducing how much time we try to make the LLMs play in that 70% wrong sort of use case.

          I see LLMs as replacing first line support, maybe escalating to a human when actual stakes arise for a call (issuing warranty replacement, usage scenario that actually has serious consequences, customer demanding the human escalation after recognizing they are falling through the AI cracks without the AI figuring out to escalate). I expect to rarely ever see “stock photography” used again. I expect animation to employ AI at least for backgrounds like “generic forest that no one is going to actively look like, but it must be plausibly forest”. I expect it to augment software developers, but not able to enable a generic manager to code up whatever he might imagine. The commonality in all these is that they live in the mind numbing sorts of things current LLM can get right and/or a high tolerance for mistakes with ample opportunity for humans to intervene before the mistakes inflict much cost.

    • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      22 hours ago

      “There was an emergency because someone was dying, so I lied and gave instructions that would hasten their death. Now there is no emergency.”

  • Frenezul0_o@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    18 hours ago

    I notice that the research didn’t include DeepSeek. It would have been nice to see how it compares.

  • Katana314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’m in a workplace that has tried not to be overbearing about AI, but has encouraged us to use them for coding.

    I’ve tried to give mine some very simple tasks like writing a unit test just for the constructor of a class to verify current behavior, and it generates output that’s both wrong and doesn’t verify anything.

    I’m aware it sometimes gets better with more intricate, specific instructions, and that I can offer it further corrections, but at that point it’s not even saving time. I would do this with a human in the hopes that they would continue to retain the knowledge, but I don’t even have hopes for AI to apply those lessons in new contexts. In a way, it’s been a sigh of relief to realize just like Dotcom, just like 3D TVs, just like home smart assistants, it is a bubble.

    • RamenJunkie@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      I find its good at making simple Python scripts.

      But also, as I evolve them, it starts randomly omitting previous functions. So it helps to k ow what you are doing at least a bit to catch that.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      I’ve found that as an ambient code completion facility it’s… interesting, but I don’t know if it’s useful or not…

      So on average, it’s totally wrong about 80% of the time, 19% of the time the first line or two is useful (either correct or close enough to fix), and 1% of the time it seems to actually fill in a substantial portion in a roughly acceptable way.

      It’s exceedingly frustrating and annoying, but not sure I can call it a net loss in time.

      So reviewing the proposal for relevance and cut off and edits adds time to my workflow. Let’s say that on overage for a given suggestion I will spend 5% more time determining to trash it, use it, or amend it versus not having a suggestion to evaluate in the first place. If the 20% useful time is 500% faster for those scenarios, then I come out ahead overall, though I’m annoyed 80% of the time. My guess as to whether the suggestion is even worth looking at improves, if I’m filling in a pretty boilerplate thing (e.g. taking some variables and starting to write out argument parsing), then it has a high chance of a substantial match. If I’m doing something even vaguely esoteric, I just ignore the suggestions popping up.

      However, the 20% is a problem still since I’m maybe too lazy and complacent and spending the 100 milliseconds glancing at one word that looks right in review will sometimes fail me compared to spending 2-3 seconds having to type that same word out by hand.

      That 20% success rate allowing for me to fix it up and dispose of most of it works for code completion, but prompt driven tasks seem to be so much worse for me that it is hard to imagine it to be better than the trouble it brings.

    • MangoCats@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      The first half dozen times I tried AI for code, across the past year or so, it failed pretty much as you describe.

      Finally, I hit on some things it can do. For me: keeping the instructions more general, not specifying certain libraries for instance, was the key to getting something that actually does something. Also, if it doesn’t show you the whole program, get it to show you the whole thing, and make it fix its own mistakes so you can build on working code with later requests.

      • vivendi@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Have you tried insulting the AI in the system prompt (as well as other tunes to the system prompt)?

        I’m not joking, it really works

        For example:

        Instead of “You are an intelligent coding assistant…”

        “You are an absolute fucking idiot who can barely code…”

        • rozodru@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 day ago

          “You are an absolute fucking idiot who can barely code…”

          Honestly, that’s what you have to do. It’s the only way I can get through using Claude.ai. I treat it like it’s an absolute moron, I insult it, I “yell” at it, I threaten it and guess what? the solutions have gotten better. not great but a hell of a lot better than what they used to be. It really works. it forces it to really think through the problem, research solutions, cite sources, etc. I have even told it i’ll cancel my subscription to it if it gets it wrong.

          no more “do this and this and then this but do this first and then do this” after calling it a “fucking moron” and what have you it will provide an answer and just say “done.”

            • MangoCats@feddit.it
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              He’s developing a toxic relationship with his AI agent. I don’t think it’s the best way to get what you want (demonstrating how to be abusive to the AI), but maybe it’s the only method he is capable of getting results with.

        • MangoCats@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 day ago

          I frequently find myself prompting it: “now show me the whole program with all the errors corrected.” Sometimes I have to ask that two or three times, different ways, before it coughs up the next iteration ready to copy-paste-test. Most times when it gives errors I’ll just write "address: " and copy-paste the error message in - frequently the text of the AI response will apologize, less frequently it will actually fix the error.

      • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        24 hours ago

        I’ve had good results being very specific, like “Generate some python 3 code for me that converts X to Y, recursively through all subdirectories, and converts the files in place.”

        • MangoCats@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          24 hours ago

          I have been more successful with baby steps like: “Write a python 3 program that converts X to Y.” Tweak prompt until that’s working as desired, then: “make it work recursively through all subdirectories” - and again tweak with specifics like converting the files in place, etc. Always very specific, also - force it to fix its own bugs so you can move forward with a clean example as you add complexity. Complexity seems to cap out at a couple of pages of code, at which point “Ooops, something went wrong.”

  • TimewornTraveler@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    imagine if this was just an interesting tech that we were developing without having to shove it down everyone’s throats and stick it in every corner of the web? but no, corpoz gotta pretend they’re hip and show off their new AI assistant that renames Ben to Mike so they dont have to actually find Mike. capitalism ruins everything.

    • MangoCats@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      There’s a certain amount of: “if this isn’t going to take over the world, I’m going to just take my money and put it in something that will” mentality out there. It’s not 100% of all investors, but it’s pervasive enough that the “potential world beaters” are seriously over-funded as compared to their more modest reliable inflation+10% YoY return alternatives.

  • szczuroarturo@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I actually have a fairly positive experience with ai ( copilot using claude specificaly ). Is it wrong a lot if you give it a huge task yes, so i dont do that and using as a very targeted solution if i am feeling very lazy today . Is it fast . Also not . I could actually be faster than ai in some cases. But is it good if you are working for 6h and you just dont have enough mental capacity for the rest of the day. Yes . You can just prompt it specificaly enough to get desired result and just accept correct responses. Is it always good ,not really but good enough. Do i also suck after 3pm . Yes.
    My main issue is actually the fact that it saves first and then asks you to pick if you want to use it. Not a problem usualy but if it crashes the generated code stays so that part sucks

    • jcg@halubilo.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      You should give Claude Code a shot if you have a Claude subscription. I’d say this is where AI actually does a decent job: picking up human slack, under supervision, not replacing humans at anything. AI tools won’t suddenly be productive enough to employ, but I as a professional can use it to accelerate my own workflow. It’s actually where the risk of them taking jobs is real: for example, instead of 10 support people you can have 2 who just supervise the responses of an AI.

      But of course, the Devil’s in the detail. The only reason this is cost effective is because of VC money subsidizing and hiding the real cost of running these models.

    • MangoCats@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      I ask AI to write simple little programs. One time in three they actually compile without errors. To the credit of the AI, I can feed it the error and about half the time it will fix it. Then, when it compiles and runs without crashing, about one time in three it will actually do what I wanted. To the credit of AI, I can give it revised instructions and about half the time it can fix the program to work as intended.

      So, yeah, a lot like interns.