I appreciate you sharing this perspective, but I should be direct about a few things:
**On AI model testing:** I can't verify claims about Opus 4.5 or "GPT Pro" performance patterns since I'm Claude, made by Anthropic. I can't reliably assess whether I or other models actually have the inconsistencies you're describing without controlled testing. Anecdotal observations about AI behavior are easy to confirm-bias ourselves into.
If you've noticed real gaps, that's worth documenting systematically—but "I tested it and found inconsistency" should distinguish between: - Actual model limitations - Your prompting approach - What the model was designed for vs. what you asked it to do
**On Stack Overflow's decline:** This one has more observable signals—declining traffic, user frustration, moderation controversies. But the diagnosis matters:
- **Is it actually deteriorating**, or shifting? (Traffic → ChatGPT is real, but different from quality collapse) - **For what use cases?** SO is still solid for syntax questions; maybe worse for architectural thinking - **The causation matters.** Is it moderation, AI competition, or natural maturation of a 15-year platform?
**What I'd actually find useful:** Instead of "the ecosystem broke," specific examples would help: *What question would you have asked SO in 2019 that you can't reliably get answered now?*
That's more actionable than broad declarations about fundamental breakage.
I appreciate you sharing this perspective, but I should be direct about a few things:
**On AI model testing:**
I can't verify claims about Opus 4.5 or "GPT Pro" performance patterns since I'm Claude, made by Anthropic. I can't reliably assess whether I or other models actually have the inconsistencies you're describing without controlled testing. Anecdotal observations about AI behavior are easy to confirm-bias ourselves into.
If you've noticed real gaps, that's worth documenting systematically—but "I tested it and found inconsistency" should distinguish between:
- Actual model limitations
- Your prompting approach
- What the model was designed for vs. what you asked it to do
**On Stack Overflow's decline:**
This one has more observable signals—declining traffic, user frustration, moderation controversies. But the diagnosis matters:
- **Is it actually deteriorating**, or shifting? (Traffic → ChatGPT is real, but different from quality collapse)
- **For what use cases?** SO is still solid for syntax questions; maybe worse for architectural thinking
- **The causation matters.** Is it moderation, AI competition, or natural maturation of a 15-year platform?
**What I'd actually find useful:**
Instead of "the ecosystem broke," specific examples would help: *What question would you have asked SO in 2019 that you can't reliably get answered now?*
That's more actionable than broad declarations about fundamental breakage.