> I tried it too and I know this test for a while.
Not only did Claude respond correctly, I also wrote it in German.
You're missing the point though. If it worked for you when you tried it, that's great, but we know these tools are stochastic, so that's not enough to call it "solved". That I tried it and it didn't work tells me it's not. And that's actually worse than it not working at all, because it leads to the false confidence you are expressing.
The strawberry example highlights like all abstractions, AI is a leaky one. It's not the oracle they're selling it as, it's just another interface you have to know the internal details of to properly use it beyond the basics. Which means that ultimately the only people who are really going to be able to wield AI are those who understand what I mean when I say "leaky abstraction". And those people can already program anyway, so what are we even solving by going full natural language?
> I created single page html Javascript pages for small prototypes withhin 10 minutes with very little repromting.
You can achieve similar results with better language design and tooling. Really this is more of an indictment of Javascript as a language. Why couldn't you write the small prototype in 10 minutes in Javascript?
> I can literally generate an image of whatever I want with just text or voice.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy doing this all the time. But AI images are kind of a different breed because art doesn't ever have to be "right". But still, just like generative text, AI images are impressive only to a point where details start to matter. Like hands. Or character consistency. Multiple characters in a scene. This is still a problem in latest models of AI not doing what you tell it to do.
> I can have a discussion with my smartphone with voice.
Yes, talking to your phone is a neat trick, but is it a discussion? Interacting with AI often feels more like an improv session, where it just makes things up and rolls with vibes. Every time (and yes I mean every) I ask it about topics I'm an expert about, it gets things wrong. Often subtly, but importantly still wrong. It feels like less of a discussion and more like I'm being slowly gaslight. This is not impressive, it's frustrating.
I think you get my point. Yes, AI can be impressive at first, but when you start using it more and more you start to see all the cracks. And it would be fine if those cracks were being patched, or even if they just acknowledged them and the limitations of LLMs. But they won't do that; instead what they are doing is pretending they don't exist, pretending these LLMs are actually good, and pushing AI into literally everything and anything. They've been promising exponential improvements for years now, and still the same problems from day 1 persist.