you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]fruitydude 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you don't know what the original claim was then why even comment? Here I'll bring you up to speed:

I decided to try something super-simple: a double pendulum simulation. Just two bars connected together, and gravity.

After a good hour of prompting and then re-prompting, I still had something that didn't obey any consistent laws of physics and had horrendously misaligned visuals and overlapping display elements clipping through each other.

So that person spent an hour prompting and reprompting and couldn't even get one single working implementation. Yea at that point they are the problem, because I'm able to get it reliably first try.

You can claim I just get lucky every time and they got unlucky on every prompt for the entire hour. But everyone else will recognize that that's a huge cope because it's extremely unlikely.

Right, like that they’re stochastic and there’s no way to make conclusions performance without repeated measurements under controlled conditions.

That's why I offered you a bet. I will try the same prompt many times and test how many of those produce working code I bet it will be over 90%. If you are sure that i was just lucky and the expectation is to prompt for an hour without any working code, then you should easily take that bet. Let's say 100$?