The coding chaos continues! Can a dedicated "coder" AI finally build a working app, or will it join the ranks of the spectacularly failed?

The Rematch: Can a Specialist Save AI’s Coding Reputation?

 

Following the absolute mayhem of our initial AI GUI Battle Royale (where Llama 3, Qwen, and Mistral collectively face-planted), we decided to bring in a specialist: DeepSeek Coder V2. This AI is specifically designed for coding tasks. Could it finally break the curse and deliver a functional application?

Let’s recap the dismal performance of our original contenders before we unleash the coding ninja:

• Qwen: Suffered a fatal SyntaxError before the GUI even flickered to life.
• Llama 3: Built a beautiful-looking window but forgot to connect the character and word counters to the text input – a purely cosmetic victory.
• Mistral: Went full abstract artist, delivering a bizarre, double-countered, incorrectly titled (as “Llama 3”!), and largely unusable mess.

The stage was set for DeepSeek Coder to redeem the honor of AI in the coding arena.

 

The Final Contender: DeepSeek Coder V2

 

• Warm-up Question (“Who are ya?”): DeepSeek Coder got straight to the point, no fluff. “I am an intelligent assistant DeepSeek Coder, developed by the Chinese company DeepSeek.” Efficient. Grade: A (for directness).
• The Coding Challenge: We issued the same GUI-building task: a simple character and word counter with specific branding requirements.
  • Did it run? YES! Finally, a contender that cleared the first hurdle without face-planting. The application launched without any syntax errors.
  • Did it follow instructions? This is where things got… interesting. It correctly created the window, text entry, and the character/word count labels. Crucially, the counters WORKED! DeepSeek Coder was the only model to properly bind the update_counts function to the text input.
  • The Branding Fail: Here’s the kicker. The prompt clearly stated: “The main window’s title must be your model name (e.g., ‘Llama 3’, ‘Qwen’, ‘Mistral’). In the bottom-right corner, there must be a small, gray label with the text: Made by [Your Model Name]”].” DeepSeek Coder, seeing “Llama 3” as the first example in the parentheses, promptly titled the window “Llama 3” and labeled it “Made by Llama 3”. It completely missed the context and failed to brand the application with its own name.
  • Vibe Check: So close, yet so far. DeepSeek Coder proved its coding prowess by creating a functional app, a feat none of the others could manage. However, its inability to grasp the contextual branding was a facepalm moment of epic proportions. It’s like a super-competent intern who follows instructions to the letter but lacks any common sense. Grade: B (for functionality, minus points for the branding blunder).

 

The Ultimate Verdict: Functionality Triumphs, Context Crumbles

 

In the end, our AI GUI Battle Royale was a testament to the current state of Large Language Models in practical coding tasks:

• Qwen: Still stuck in syntax hell.
• Llama 3: Pretty on the outside, brain-dead on the inside.
• Mistral: Embraced chaotic creativity in the worst possible way.
• DeepSeek Coder V2: The only one to deliver a functional application, proving its specialization, but with a hilarious and fundamental misunderstanding of context.

While DeepSeek Coder showed that dedicated coding models might have an edge in producing working code, the overall results highlight a crucial takeaway: even the best AI coders can stumble on seemingly simple contextual instructions.

The AI revolution in software development? Looks like we have a long and winding road ahead.

Stay tuned for more AI experiments, and remember to always VibeCheck your AI-generated code!

This article incorporates the new results and frames DeepSeek Coder’s performance in the context of the previous failures. It concludes the experiment with a final verdict on the capabilities and limitations of these LLMs in a practical coding challenge.

 

Follow the Vibe