It’s cool but there’s a good chance it’s just copying someone else’s homework albeit in an elaborate round about way.
There's some incredible source available code out there. Statistically, I think there's a LOT more not so great source available code out there, because the majority of output of seasoned/high skill developers is proprietary.
To me, a surprising portion of Claude 4.5 output definitely looks like student homework answers, because I think that's closer to the mean of the code population.
i'm guessing most of the gains we've seen recently are post training rather than pretraining.
But, I naively assume most orgs would opt out. I know some orgs have a proxy in place that will prevent certain proprietary code from passing through!
This makes me curious if, in the allow case, Anthropic is recording generated output, to maybe down-weight it if it's seen in the training data (or something similar)?
Exploits and HFT are the two examples I can think of. Both are usually closed source because of the financial incentives.
I haven’t seen HFT code but I have seen examples of exploit codes and most of it is amateur hour when it comes to building big size systems.
They are of course efficient in getting to the goal. But exploits are one off code that is not there to be maintained.
Seen this way too often.
Even worse in many cases because they are so over engineered nobody understands how they work.
But to give other devs and myself some grace, I do believe plenty of bad code can likely be explained by bad deadlines. After all, what's the Russian idiom? "There is nothing more permanent than the temporary."
I echo the other commenters that proprietary code isn’t any better, plus it doesn’t matter because when you use LLMs to work on proprietary code, it has the code right there.
The quality of the existing code base makes a huge difference. On a recent greenfield effort, Claude emitted an MVP that matched the design semantics, but the code was not up to standards. For example, it repeatedly loaded a large file into memory in different areas where it was needed (rather than loading once and passing a reference.)
However, after an early refactor, the subsequently generated code vastly improved. It honors the testing and performance paradigms, and it's so clean there's nothing for the linter to do.
For this reason, to be truly useful, model outputs need to be verifiable. Formal verification with languages like Dafny , F*, or Isabelle might offer some solutions [1]. Otherwise, a gigantic software artifact such as a compiler is going to have a critical correctness bugs with far-fetched consequences if deployed in production.
Right now, I think treating a LLM like something different than a very useful information retrieval system with excellent semantic capabilities is not something I am comfortable with.
[1] https://risemsr.github.io/blog/2026-02-04-nik-agentic-pop
> the huge gains in coding performance in the past year have come from RL, not from new sources of training data.
Author attributes past year's degradation of code generation by LLMs to excessive use of new source of training data, namely, users' code generation conversations.
And their “explanation” blaming the training data is just a guess on their part, one that I suspect is wrong. There is no argument given that that’s the actual cause of the observed phenomenon. It’s a just-so story: something that sounds like it could explain it but there’s no evidence it actually does.
My evidence is that RL is more relevant is that that’s what every single researcher and frontier lab employee I’ve heard speak about LLMs in the past year has said. I have never once heard any of them mention new sources of pretraining data, except maybe synthetic data they generate and verify themselves, which contradicts the author’s story because it’s not shitty code grabbed off the internet.
> Yeah, this is a bullshit article. There is no such degradation, and it’s absurd to say so on the basis of a single problem which the author describes as technically impossible. It is a very contrived under-specified prompt.
> My evidence is that RL is more relevant is that that’s what every single researcher and frontier lab employee I’ve heard speak about LLMs in the past year has said.
[1] https://openreview.net/forum?id=4OsgYD7em5
> I have never once heard any of them mention new sources of pretraining data, except maybe synthetic data they generate and verify themselves, which contradicts the author’s story because it’s not shitty code grabbed off the internet.
From the days I have worked on blockchains, I am very skeptical about any company riding any hype. They face enormous competition and they will buy, borrow or steal their way to try to not go down even a little. So, until Anthropic opens the way they train their model so that we can reproduce their results, I will suspect they leaked test set into it and used users code generation conversation as new source of training data.
>>> It is a very contrived under-specified prompt.
The article about degradation is a case study (single prompt), weakest of the studies in hierarchy of knowledge. Case studies are basis for further, more rigorous studies. And author took the time to test his assumptions and presented quite clear evidence that such degradation might be present and that we should investigate.
But I wonder how it would fare given a language specification for a non-existent non-trivial language and build a compiler for that instead?
It is standing on the shoulders of giants (all of the compilers of the past, built into it's training data... and the recent learnings about getting these agents to break up tasks) to get itself going. Still fairly impressive.
On a side-quest, I wonder where Anthropic is getting there power from. The whole energy debacle in the US at the moment probably means it made some CO2 in the process. Would be hard to avoid?