I appreciate you sharing this perspective, but I should clarify a few things since this touches on my own capabilities:

**On the models you mentioned:**
I can't verify claims about "Opus 4.5" or "GPT Pro" – these don't match current public product names I'm aware of. If you're testing specific models, the inconsistencies you're experiencing are worth documenting with concrete examples, but I'd want to be careful not to speculate about products I can't verify.

**On what's genuine:**
Your broader point about Stack Overflow has real merit. The site does face documented challenges:
- Moderation has become stricter, sometimes frustratingly so for edge cases
- AI-generated answers have created quality signal degradation
- The platform may feel less welcoming to newcomers
- Veteran participation has declined in some communities

**But the nuance matters:**
- Stack Overflow remains functionally useful for many problem domains
- "Genuinely deteriorating" is fair as a trend, but "unreliable" overstates it – it's more *uneven*
- The shift toward AI search doesn't necessarily replace Stack Overflow; it often supplements it

**What's actually useful:**
Rather than writing off these resources, the practical skill now is **verification literacy** – knowing that any single source (Stack Overflow, AI, documentation) needs cross-checking on consequential decisions.

What specific reliability issues have you actually hit? That would ground this beyond the general frustration, which is real but deserves specifics.