>That's expected, since all the leetcode problems have ready-to-use solutions on the internet.
1) If the implication is "The model knows the answer and regurgitates it like lyrics to a song" then I would push back. Put a leet code problem into deepseek r1 chain-of-reasoning model and watch it spend 2 minutes spitting out 5000 words thinking through every single facet of the problem and genuinely solving it at a level that is higher than 95% of programmers.
And point 2)
If you do believe it's fundamentally about how much the model has been trained on, then it has seen your CRUD app and has already seen 10,000 times the feature or system you're about to write -- so it should be a foregone conclusion that it can also do all of that development work too. Only the higher order architecting and proprietary domains should be challenging for it, as there would be far less examples to train on (scarcity) or the model doesn't understand a complex solution (architecting systems at scale is something it can't do).
(I also point out how well these models did for Advent of Code 2024, when there were zero examples in the training data for it).
It's not "thinking", it's regurgitating an internet search and padding it out with markov-chain style text autocompletion.
The 5000 words of padding do not actually provide any value, it's verbal white noise to fill space.
> ...then it has seen your CRUD app and has already seen 10,000 times the feature or system you're about to write
Well, yes. Lots of pointless waste in software engineering.
Fortunately I don't write CRUD apps and AI does nothing at all for me in a professional context.
Are you "thinking" or are you regurgitating analysis of the problem based on what you read on the internet, too?
This one is funny because for something like leet code, nearly everyone just reads the best answers, learns them and learns how to regurgitate them in an interview environment.
> (In fact, the reason they ask leetcode questions isn't to test your IQ, it's to know if you've read the obvious and available literature.)
Rather: it tests whether you are sufficiently docile and devoted to be willing to cram lots of leetcode exercise books that have no relevance for the programming concepts that the job will involve, just for a lottery ticket for a somewhat well-paid position.
I know that there is so much more to programming and related topics that is sooo much deeper (in particular if non-trivial mathematics becomes involved) than these leetcode-style brainteasers. So I strongly prefer to read about such deeply intellectually inspiring topics related to programming instead of jumping through the idiotic hoops that other people want me to.
Indeed, I thus fail the test for docility and devotedness, but I honestly can't take organisations seriously that demand such jumping through hoops.
That's expected, since all the leetcode problems have ready-to-use solutions on the internet.
(In fact, the reason they ask leetcode questions isn't to test your IQ, it's to know if you've read the obvious and available literature.)