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 dont expect it to be 100% accurate. Software aren't bug free, human aren't perfect. But may be 99.99%? At least given enough time and resources human could fact check it ourselves. And precisely because we know we are not perfect, in accounting and court cases we have due diligence.

And it is also not just about the %. It is also about the type of error. Will we reach a point we change our perception and say these are expected non-human error?

Or could we have a specific LLM that only checks for these types of error?