/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

days · browse · Enter similar · o open

A study of GPT-3.5-based ChatGPT's ability to solve 728 coding problems: fairly good at solving problems that existed before 2021, but struggles with newer ones

IEEE Spectrum Michelle Hampson

Context & Ripple Effects

This evaluation adds a time-based limitation to earlier evidence that ChatGPT’s programming guidance can be unreliable: a separate review of Stack Overflow responses found frequent incorrect information in GPT-3.5 answers.

It also fits a broader warning against treating model generations as a simple capability ladder. Prior research reported task-level performance differences between ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4, making version- and benchmark-specific testing important.

First-order effects

  • Developers using GPT-3.5-based ChatGPT for coding get a clearer reason to scrutinize answers involving post-2021 problems, rather than applying the same confidence to older and newer tasks.
  • The result narrows what this particular system’s strong performance on established coding problems can demonstrate; it does not establish equivalent utility on newer material.

Second-order effects

  • Teams evaluating coding assistants will need test sets that reflect the age and stack of their own work, alongside checks for correctness, instead of relying on broad coding benchmarks.
  • Providers face added pressure to distinguish genuine reasoning and up-to-date problem solving from performance that may be stronger on material resembling older public examples.

Third-order effects

  • If temporal gaps recur across evaluations, coding-assistant procurement and deployment will shift toward continuous, version-specific evaluation rather than one-time headline benchmark scores.
  • The larger market may increasingly separate assistants that serve as drafting aids from those trusted for newer production work, with verification remaining central where error costs are high.

The trend: AI coding tools are moving from general demonstrations of competence toward evidence-based assessment of how reliably each model performs on current, real-world tasks.

Discussion

  • @malwarejake Jake Williams on x
    Do LLMs understand programming problems? The data would suggest the answer is no. When presented with problems in the training data set, ChatGPT did okay'ish (though even its best results would get any programmer fired). But on newer problems, it choked. https://spectrum.ieee.org…
  • @grady_booch Grady Booch on x
    In other words, ChatGPT is largely useless for generating code for real and enduring economically interesting software-intensive systems. https://spectrum.ieee.org/...
  • @mjasay Matt Asay on x
    “As coding evolves, ChatGPT has not been exposed yet to new problems and solutions. It lacks the critical thinking skills of a human and can only address problems it has previously encountered.” AI: good for pattern matching, bad for critical thinking https://spectrum.ieee.org/..…
  • @ivanilves Ivan Ilves on x
    Exploring ChatGPT's role in coding: useful for generating code snippets, explaining code, and aiding in debugging. Always review its suggestions! #Coding #AI 🔗https://spectrum.ieee.org/ ...
  • @simonkp Simon P on x
    ChatGPT's coding skills are impressive, but not perfect. A new study shows it excels at solving older coding problems, but struggles with newer ones, suggesting it lacks the critical thinking skills... #AI #MachineLearning #ArtificialIntelligence #NLP #LLM https://spectrum.ieee.o…
  • @brainify78 @brainify78 on x
    🤖 How good is ChatGPT at coding? A study in IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering shows its success rate ranges from 0.66% to 89%, depending on task difficulty and language. It excels at older problems but struggles with newer ones. #AI #Coding #Cha... https://spectrum.ieee.o…
  • @joel_linux Joel Fernandes on x
    Essentially, as coding evolves, ChatGPT has not been exposed yet to new problems and solutions. It lacks the critical thinking skills of a human and can only address problems it has previously encountered. https://spectrum.ieee.org/...
  • r/technology r on reddit
    How Good Is ChatGPT at Coding, Really?  Study finds that while AI can be great, it also struggles due to training limitations