alt Hacker NewsI've tried both against similar and haven't found it such a clear cut difference. I still find neither are able to fully implement a complex algorithm I worked on in the past correctly with the same inputs. Not sharing exactly the benchmark I'm using but think about something for improving performance of N^2 operations that are common in physics and you can probably guess the train of thought.
Replies
tirutiru • yesterday at 8:20 PM
I can roughly guess the train of thought and I am a bit surprised that Claude is failing you.
That said, I am puzzled at the algorithms that Claude & GPT "get" and ones that they do not.
(former physicist here. would love to know the kind of things you're working on. email on my profile)
I've had reasonable success using GPT for both neighbor list and Barnes-Hut implementations (also quad/oct-trees more generally), both of which fit your description, haven't tried Ewald summation or PME / P3M. However, when I say "reasonable success", I don't mean "single shot this algo with a minimal prompt", only that the model can produce working and decently optimized implementations with fairly precise guidance from an experienced user (or a reference paper sometimes) much faster than I would write them by hand. I expect a good PME implementation from scratch would make for a pretty decent benchmark.