I think the problem is is that coding is not wholly a 'writing code' problem. It's a translation from idea to outcome. Often I think the bad code generated by an LLM is less to do with it's 'ability' and more to do with an instruction that hasn't adequately accounted for the possibility of what code satisfies the criteria. I'm not sure how a newer model can improve on this per se - sure there will be imrpovement on outright mistakes but for me at least, that's been and gone with more or less with any model released in te last 6 months.
I switched to predomentantly using mimo this week, mostly out of curiosity to see how dependant I was on frontier models. Honestly I cant really tell the difference. I would say I work on pretty average codebases with well know frameworks doing pretty typical things and initial impressions is that mimo, kimi and deepseek can probably handle what I need more or less the same as gpt5.5 or claude.
I may be misunderstanding the article but doesnt the fact that all other science and understanding sits on a continuum of which consciousness has (to my understading) to real footing mean that the problem is dualitic by definition?
Thats not to say that it can't be 'brought into the fold', it may well be, but until it is it has no other place that to sit outside.