IMO, the writer is overzealous with their comments on LLMs. As a coder, it feels like an outsider trying out a product that was amazed me over and over so many times.
> They aren’t perfect, but the kind of analysis the program is able to do is past the point where technology looks like magic.
But as you use this product over a long period of time, there are many obvious gaps - hallucinations / repeated tool calls / out of context outputs / etc.
To me, refine.ink sounds like a company that has built heavy tooling around some super high context window LLMs and then some very good prompts. Their claim is to compare it against any good off-the-shelf LLM with any prompt. But when you are spending bunch of money to build a whole ecosystem around LLMs, it's obvious that it's not going to beat their output.
I won't be surprised if the next version of an LLM within the next few months completely outperforms their output -- that's usually the case with all the coding tools and scaffoldings. They are rendered useless by a superior LLM.
The whole reason why embeddings work so well is because they encode the underlying meaning of the texts