Debunking Devin: "First AI Software Engineer" Upwork lie exposed!

This debunking video( [VIDEO] ) of Devin really questioned the usefulness for me. It created a file in the repo and spent a lot of time debugging its own unnecessary code rather than reading the Read Me to understand that the code it needed to use already existed and just needed to be run with different inputs. It's not clear it we're even near a point where it can independently and meaningfully contribute to an existing codebase rather these greenfield demos. Feels similar to the self-driving AI hype where level 5 is still pretty far from realized (Waymo is closest but AIUI still uses a lot of remote human intervention).

The last thing I saw on it was a video saying that calling Devin an AI software engineer that does Upwork tasks is a lie based in what was shared in an earlier video. [VIDEO] "I broke down the Devin Upwork video frame by frame, and here I show what Devin was supposed to do, what it actually managed to do instead, and how bad a job of that it did. On the whole that's not surprising given the current state of Generative AI, and I wouldn't be bothering to debunk it, except: 1) The company lied about what Devin could do in the video description, and 2) a lot of people uncritically parroted the lie all over the Internet, and 3) That caused a lot of non-technical people to believe that AI might replace programmers soon. "

No public testing, no benchmarks, no clear information on context window size or restrictions for extensive use, no comparison with the newest Claude Sonnet 3.5 or O1, nothing. What we do get is a price of $ 500,- per month from a company that has been caught lying about this very product [0] and has never allowed independent testing. Cognition, I am sorry to tell you, but there is no reason to trust you. In fact, there are multiple good reasons no to, even if you offered Devin at a fraction. If this were e.g. Anthropic launching a new beyond Opus size model that was still performant and came with "chain-of-thought" capabilities, a far more extensive context window that still fully passes needle in haystack and is absolutely solid in sourcing from provided files, keeps on track even when provided with large documents, has few or no restrictions on usage and comes with extensive, verifiable benchmarks that showcase this offering being a significant upgrade over other models, maybe such a price could be justified. You know why Cognition? Because they haven’t actively lied. What they did instead was let people use their models and actually test the advantages. Even Claude Instant way back when had certain use cases that made them have their own niche and showed they could execute before expanding with 2 and the larger context, then 3 with more applications. You never did any of that, you never gave anyone reason to believe what you claim, you didn’t even release benchmarks. See