This will change too man. Maybe I am in a bubble but with how fast things are changing, it won’t be too long before the bubble becomes reality.

Either way we should be doing experiments on the actual capabilities of AI not about the stupidest possible way to use AI because it helps validate your own negative bias against AI.

Additionally as software engineers using agentic AI… which HN basically is… this experiment is not at all relevant in the context of where it is posted. We ALL use agentic ai and we all have the agent use surgical tools for editing. Don’t you find it strange that despite the fact we all do this, HN is full of rabid engineers gobbling this paper up as validation despite complete lack of relevance?

I don’t understand you. We have an AI model. The AI model is obviously capable.

But you want to use pretend that it’s not useful because non technical people haven’t figured out how to properly use it yet?

Do you think that’s a valid argument? This article is making a claim of 25 percent degredation. Do you think that claim is true because a lot of people don’t use it right?

Humans have 99 percent degredation when editing one punctuation point of an entire book when regurgitating that entire book just to change one punctuation point. Does this statement sound reasonable to you? Because that is the statement you and your genius interloper into this thread are standing behind. Just replace human with LLM and it’s the same kind of genius logic.