正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

How much better are models at coding now vs 2 years ago? Side by side coding performance from GPT-4 (June '23) to GPT-5 (Aug '25) with an identical prompt: "Create a single page HTML of a fruit machine simulation" Please watch the video until the end and tell me...

123,694 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

25 条评论

Uri Gil 的头像
Uri Gil1 年前

4.1 is an absolute beast

Peter Gostev 的头像
Peter Gostev1 年前

The amount of code it was actually outputting was kind of crazy, especially comparing it to previous non-reasoning models, it is so much better than older ones

Uri Gil 的头像
Uri Gil1 年前

i think thats because its the only model openai made specifically for "coding" rather than "software engineering", i.e = winning swe contests.

ハセン حسن 的头像
ハセン حسن1 年前

LLM models have not improved much since last year Contrived examples like the one you're demoing do not prove anything. Ask any recent "state of the art" model to do something that slightly deviates from the established patterns and it will just hallucinate.

Lucas Baker 的头像
Lucas Baker1 年前

I don’t see the progress as being all that significant. There has been some modest improvement, but even the newest models output a lot of garbage. Though, one would think otherwise to listen to the hype squad on social media.

cedric gamelin 的头像
cedric gamelin1 年前

in our games we even see some regression w claude

Petri Kuittinen 的头像
Petri Kuittinen1 年前

I don't even need to watch the video, as I have tested well over 100 LLMs in the past few years. I know the progress has been massive, especially in coding & math. Now imagine what the next 2 years can bring us. Probably the best AI agents can in 2 years work an entire 8 h day without any human interaction needed, doing PRs, ironing out bugs, deploying, optimizing the code for efficiency, hunting down software vulnerabilities and fixing them automatically.

Nathan Benaich 的头像
Nathan Benaich1 年前

haha o3-pro is like gambling on crack

Santosh 的头像
Santosh1 年前

Gpt 5 pro is missing

Peter Gostev 的头像
Peter Gostev1 年前

Good shout, how could I forget!

Santosh 的头像
Santosh1 年前

Noice 😋

Pazow 的头像
Pazow1 年前

@voids_thoughts made me think of our conversation earlier

Bobby Z 的头像
Bobby Z1 年前

very cool, thanks for making this

downthecrop 的头像
downthecrop1 年前

One of the worst prompts I've ever read

TH_DA 的头像
TH_DA1 年前

frontend design did clearly not evolve at all;)

Wendy Carlosa 的头像
Wendy Carlosa1 年前

i have the answer. if it could code well you would put it in an infinite loop of refinement but instead you save backups and retreat to the last one before the abacus dinked you

Mykhailo Sorochuk 的头像
Mykhailo Sorochuk1 年前

Progress is evident, but still a long way to go. Would be interesting to see side-by-side iterations over multiple prompts.

Hans 的头像
Hans1 年前

Sometime you have to zoom out to see progress!

Peter 的头像
Peter1 年前

Great great video

maneramodos 的头像
maneramodos1 年前

So what’s the progress here?

sachosdev 的头像
sachosdev1 年前

Amazing, thanks for the work! Such a clear depiction of progress. It would be cool to test "Oneshot + 5 iterations" to see how the model capability to iterate over previous prompts improved over the years. ie say "improve it" 5 times and see the final result.

MINURY 的头像
MINURY1 年前

@MirraTerminal

Aaron Meurer 的头像
Aaron Meurer1 年前

The models have not improved enough in the last 2 years

Morpheus 的头像
Morpheus1 年前

I tried chatgtp yesterday for a rather simple bash script. It completely failed and I had to do it by myself which took me half an hour :(

Olli Airola 的头像
Olli Airola1 年前

I'm pro AI-for-coding and was actually expecting a huge progress but I literally can't see much progress in the video

相关视频

GPT-5.6 vs GPT-5.5 on my custom spaceship prompt. I gave both models the exact same custom prompt. This is also the same prompt I previously gave to Fable 5. For context, GPT-5.6 Pro worked for 87 minutes, while GPT-5.5 Extra High worked for 34 minutes and 42 seconds. As I’ve said before, based on great authority GPT-5.6 will be an incremental/soldi improvement over GPT-5.5, not a “Fable killer.” My rough expectation has been that it would trade blows with Fable 5 on some benchmarks, maybe win around half depending on the category, but not clearly surpass it overall. And again fable five will have bigger model smell, but this was expected. After testing this coding output, that view feels pretty accurate. GPT-5.6 is clearly better than GPT-5.5 in several visual areas. The lighting, shading, chairs, object details, and exterior of the spaceship looked noticeably stronger. The scene was also easier to test. I do want to give GPT-5.5 credit though. It built out the rooms much much better and the planets looked better than GPT-5.6’s. It was also interesting that both GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6 produced better-looking planets than Fable 5 in this specific test. The downside with GPT-5.5 was stability. The game was much glitchier and harder to test compared to GPT-5.6. But when it comes to the core of the demo, which is the spaceship itself, Fable 5 still beat both models pretty comfortably. GPT-5.6 is impressive, but from this test, it looks exactly like what I expected which was a meaningful incremental improvement over GPT-5.5, at least for indie game demos, but not something that replaces Fable 5. In collaboration with Chetaslua

Chris

250,919 次观看 • 4 个月前