You broke the HN guidelines badly with this, first because of the name-calling and personal attack, and second because it is a shallow dismissal in exactly the sense we ask people not to post here:

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

On the plus side, your comment does contain some specific observations which could have made for a good comment—one that communicates interesting information respectfully. If you'd please post that way in the future, we'd appreciate it.

It said “3D-looking Rubrik cube”. Maybe your cube looks different but I’m pretty sure for everyone else, the GPT result doesn’t look like a 3D-looking Rubrik cube.

> This feels like a kid trying to do science. The will is there, but lacks experience.

It's funny, when I saw the title I was hoping the article would include some sort of blind ranking, where you could see the outputs (without knowing which model they came from) and score them on some criteria. Could have been a fun way to get a better ranking of the results.

I wouldn't be surprised if multiple versions of both the cube and Breakout code are available some place online.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Breakout_game...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Screensh...

That the tiles are much to thick makes Grok the most reasonable result.

>Comparison are completely subjective

Nothing wrong with that.

In this case, the requirement is clear enough, and the result is similar enough to judge it subjectively.

Even code-wise, if tests pass and the features are there in all cases, the rest of what matters (architecture, code quality, style, readability) is all subjective too.

GPT somehow wins the particle sandbox thing too despite its heavy attractors not attracting anything.

It’s still science if you say “this appears to be a specimen of X” even if you don’t do a genetic test. Things don’t automatically graduate to science either by repetition or by formal verification. What makes a rubics cube is obvious enough that you can pass or fail.

Show us how it’s done then, talk is cheap

> This feels like a kid trying to do science.

lol. These are the comments that keep bringing me back here. Great feedback delivered with a dash (or more) of salt.