Maybe that's true, and maybe you're an outlier. But from what we've been seeing, the frontier LLMs have torn apart many codebases, finding bugs littered everywhere, some over a decade old.

At this point it seems impossible for human to write better/more efficient code than a swarm of agents -- to be clear, multiple coordinated LLMs, not one-shot builds with a single agent.

How much money was put into this, and what would putting a similar amount of money into fuzzing, static analysis, and human researchers look like?

>Gotta be honest, LLMs are still subpar compared to what I do.

Im sorry... what?

You are replying to this:

> Our first formalization of Fermat’s Last Theorem, performed by an unreleased research version of Claude, took 11 days. It relied on a purpose-built harness along with guidance from a human researcher. By contrast, a team of 1,000 Fable 5.2 agents fully formalized the theorem in just 30 hours, with minimal human intervention. Fable 5.2 started from minimal prompts, built its own ways to coordinate, and used no mathematical references, only a list of intermediate theorem statements to score progress. It needed one-third of the action tokens as our first formalization and produced a proof seven times shorter. As can be seen in the figure below, Opus 5.5 (with the same 1,000-agent setup) completed only 26% of the formalization in 18 hours, and barely made any more progress after 30.