It’s a vague statement that I obviously cannot defend in all interpretations, but what I mean is: the performance of models at making non-trivial applications end-to-end, today, is not practically better than it was a few years ago. They’re (probably) better at making toys or one-shotting simple stuff, and they can definitely (sometimes) crank out shitty code for bigger apps that “works”, but they’re just as terrible as ever if you actually understand what quality looks like and care to keep your code from descending into entropy.

I think "substantial" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the sentence I quoted. For example, I’m not going to argue that aspects of the process haven’t improved, or that Claude 4.5 isn't better than GPT 4 at coding, but I still can’t trust any of the things to work on any modestly complex codebase without close supervision, and that is what I understood the broad argument to be about. It's completely irrelevant to me if they slay the benchmarks or make killer one-shot N-body demos, and it's marginally relevant that they have better context windows or now hallucinate 10% less often (in that they're more useful as tools, which I don't dispute at all), but if you want to claim that they're suddenly super-capable robot engineers that I can throw at any "substantial" problem, you have to bring evidence, because that's a claim that defies my day-to-day experience. They're just constantly so full of shit, and that hasn't changed, at all.

FWIW, this line of argument usually turns into a mott and bailey fallacy, where someone makes an outrageous claim (e.g. "models have recently gained the ability to operate independently as a senior engineer!"), and when challenged on the hyperbole, retreats to a more reasonable position ("Claude 4.5 is clearly better than GPT 3!"), but with the speculative caveat that "we don't know where things will be in N years". I'm not interested in that kind of speculation.