I would assume that if a tool is there and the alternative too costly that they would use the tool instead of buring their project. Just today I stumbled over this for example, where they use GenAI as well: https://reddit.com/comments/1prqfsu

Not for coding, but today I stumbled upon these two building their passion project using GenAI, which would otherwise perhaps not be possible: https://reddit.com/comments/1prqfsu

It doesn't have to be hyped to be used, for example today I found these two building their passion project using GenAI, which would otherwise maybe not possible, who knows: https://reddit.com/comments/1prqfsu

This is just one example, but today I found this where two people build their passion project using GenAI for image generation (+ photoshop), maybe otherwise this project wouldn't even be possible: https://reddit.com/comments/1prqfsu

Though this Codex version isnt on the leaderboard, GPT-5.2-Medium already seems to be a bit better than Opus 4.5: https://swe-rebench.com/

Is that your website or something? You keep promoting it

No, I am not affiliated with the website, I just want to see more discussions based on uncontaminated benchmarks and feel that people rely too much on benchmarks that companies can conduct themselves. If that is the case, I don't feel I can trust them. For general LLM capabilities, for example, I would also tend to rely on dubesor [1] rather than artificial analysis or similar leaderboards.

[1] https://dubesor.de/benchtable

At least on swe-rebench it does pretty well: https://swe-rebench.com/

Your experience seems to match the recent results from swe-rebench: https://swe-rebench.com/

According to SWE-Rebench Anthropic and OpenAI are really close in performance, while GPT-5.2 costs less than half the cost of CC per problem.

https://swe-rebench.com/

Interesting. So similar to the vision encoder + projector in VLMs?

I am eagerly awaiting swe-rebench results for November with all the new models: https://swe-rebench.com/