Yeah, that seems to be the general pattern across vi-emulation. However, back when I was on IntellJ stuff (pre vi-emulation), I was already quite deep into the plethora of keyboard shortcuts within IntelliJ, so although you couldn’t do everything with just vi-emulation, you could still do essentially almost everything without leaving the keyboard. Not the same as full blown vim, but it was a solid workflow in my eyes.
The main reason I switched was because of finances and hardware limitations, as I’m now rocking an 8GB M1 MBP
That is completely false. It is a reasonable type of question and a reasonable expectation. You can't route correctly if you can't do reasoning.
Imagine a prompt:
```
INSTRUCTION: You're a customer service agent that routes customer service requests.
CUSTOMER MESSAGE: I haven't received my order and want a refund.
CONTEXT: A signature is required at delivery. No one was available to sign.
You can route to one of:
* Billing & refunds
* Shipping & tracking
* Order cancelation
* Level II customer service
```
The dumb model, e.g. 1.7B, wrongly routes to Billing. The smart model, e.g. GPT-5.6-Medium, correctly routes to Shipping. It matters. In the real world, the CONTEXT will even be 10-100x larger and noisier.
IT is not black and white and just because you are able to bring up a random example doesn't mean you are right.
These models are build to be small, we have a lot of diverse tasks which do not need fable or whatever because if you are a company and you have to route 100.000 requests per day, costs matter.
And these small models, if they are not good enough for my specific use case, i can easily finetune (which i have btw.).
You can also easily solve your example by having a second stage. If the customer is unhappy about the first thing or an employee flags it as 'wrong', you can either send it automatically to a more expensive model or the employee fixes it and you got automatic training data.
https://www.eicar.org/download-anti-malware-testfile/
reply