> the results were dismal. The best-performing model was Anthropic's Claude 3.5 Sonnet, which struggled to finish just 24 percent of the jobs assigned to it. The study's authors note that even this meager performance is prohibitively expensive, averaging nearly 30 steps and a cost of over $6 per task.

and other AIs were worse.

Not yet? Okay. Good. In fact, great! I like existing.

For now.

"Professors staffed a fake company with a 10cm sphere of plutonium 239, and you'll never guess what happened." Egg on their face, I'm sure.

Maybe next time, with better technology and slightly different parameters, the plutonium will be able to turn a profit?

Nailed it. It seems to be doing a good job of helping coders and document writers. It seems to be great at solving protein folding. Other than that, I'm not so sure.

"We tried something, and we couldn't make it work. Therefore it must be impossible to do."

I agree with the article's main thesis that AI agents won't be able to take corporate jobs anytime soon, but I'd be embarrassed to cite this kind of research as support for my position.