> I think it's touching the limit of what one can reasonably expect any intelligent thing to produce with the only direction being "produce an svg of a pelican riding a bicycle".
Oh come now. I am extremely confident that if I hired a professional artist to draw a picture of a pelican riding a bicycle, I would get something inarguably much better than what today's best coding LLMs can produce.
At that rate you could use an image model, which was designed for the task. Thats the absurdity of this test. It’s often a text only generation model that has never seen a pelican, coerced into creating an xml graphical representation that a human might recognize. That it does anything passable is already astounding.
I agree, it's hard! That's why it's still a good benchmark.
It probably has a few million inputs on how a pelican and bicycle looks, not to mention the amount of data on how to create SVG’s. Ask it to create a relaxing spa website and it will, even though it has never seen a spa.
> if I hired a professional artist to draw a picture of a pelican riding a bicycle,
I think AI folks have done a terrible job of communicating this, but replacing a professional simply isn't the point. The point is to serve all the situations where people would've never considered hiring a professional, and where perfection or artistic merit isn't the point (say a personal throwaway recreation of an LOTR world).
And I think in that regard the benchmarks are pretty good.
> replacing a professional simply isn't the point.
I'm not saying it is, just that there's obviously still room for the models to improve on this task.