zlacker

>>meetpa+(OP)
My frustration with using these models for programming in the past has largely been around their tendency to hallucinate APIs that simply don't exist. The Gemini 2.5 models, both pro and flash, seem significantly less susceptible to this than any other model I've tried.

There are still significant limitations, no amount of prompting will get current models to approach abstraction and architecture the way a person does. But I'm finding that these Gemini models are finally able to replace searches and stackoverflow for a lot of my day-to-day programming.

>>segpha+J4
I have been asking if AI without hallucination, coding or not is possible but so far with no real concrete answer.

>>ksec+66
It's already much improved on the early days.

But I wonder when we'll be happy? Do we expect colleagues friends and family to be 100% laser-accurate 100% of the time? I'd wager we don't. Should we expect that from an artificial intelligence too?

>>mattlo+E6
I expect my calculator to be 100% accurate 100% of the time. I have slightly more tolerance for other software having defects, but not much more.

>>kweing+c8
I don't think that's the relevant comparison though. Do you expect StackOverflow or product documentation to be 100% accurate 100% of the time? I definitely don't.

>>Analem+vk
I actually agree with this. I use LLMs often, and I don't compare them to a calculator.

Mainly I meant to push back against the reflexive comparison to a friend or family member or colleague. AI is a multi-purpose tool that is used for many different kinds of tasks. Some of these tasks are analogues to human tasks, where we should anticipate human error. Others are not, and yet we often ask an LLM to do them anyway.