Most people see a clumsy chatbot, most professionals see modest gains, and a tiny group is watching the curve go vertical, all at once.
The future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed.
atmavatar 3 minutes ago [-]
> a tiny group is watching the curve go vertical
Caveat: that same tiny group is employed by the AI vendors, meaning it's in their financial best interest to make it sound like the curve is going vertical.
lifeisloving 12 minutes ago [-]
I use models all day everyday, have unlimited access to all models. The curve is not going "verticle". I have all the workflows and meta agentic tooling, im not holding it wrong. Its bad, not everything is a 20th percentile problem.
There is in fact no indication of this, not evem the precious benchmaxxed benchmarks ya'll love to reference.
There is however a exponential curve of slop, and an ever increasing number of peoples who's minds are completely captured by these things.
mccoyb 14 minutes ago [-]
If the software coming out of OpenAI and Anthropic is what we have to judge, I wonder about the 5000 ...
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the models are some multiplicative factor better on the inside.
Doesn't that mean the demos should work?
j2kun 4 minutes ago [-]
Unfortunately, marketing, hype, and venture capital overshadows any serious public discussion of capabilities.
spiderice 5 minutes ago [-]
I'm confused.. are you suggesting that Claude Code / Codex don't work? Because if you're still saying that in October 2026, it's a you problem. You're doing something wrong.
ashleyn 8 minutes ago [-]
>Meanwhile, human review and comprehension are starting to fall behind. For example, people are still involved in the "archeology" of the OpenAI-HF incident from many months ago. Mathematicians may be poring over the 722 manuscripts on frontier mathematics for a while.
Amid all the discussion of sigmoid curves, and where the "LLM wall" will materialise, I think few people would have predicted that the real wall in LLMs would end up being humans' capacity to verify the output.
What I fear is that people simply eschew human review altogether, considering we're talking about the industry that came up with the "move fast and break things" credo. Human review of LLM-produced code where I work is already a farce, and we're not special enough to be one of Karpathy's 5,000. I do my best to manually review anything that's my responsibility, but I'm literally one of very few people left working on my team, so in practice what happens is I submit PRs that are at best glossed over by completely unrelated teams for security, malware/prompt injection, and other serious concerns. Quality insofar as vetting others' code has completely gone out the window and it shows in the number of bug reports that come back, often themselves written in Claudease. This is all on top of everyone cynically phoning it in in the first place, due to the omnipresent sword of Damocles that is additional AI-driven layoffs.
Worse yet all the incentives point to this being the most economically viable thing individual companies can do. I think it goes without saying some type of regulation here is urgently needed, and that an unexpected cause of an AI bubble pop may end up being that humans simply aren't able to keep up with the pace of the output - leading either to precautionary plateauing of capability, or major liability risks related to a decline in quality.
michaelchisari 3 minutes ago [-]
| few people would have predicted that the real wall in LLMs would end up being humans' capacity to verify the output
That was the dominant concern in the circles I’m in, so it’s worrisome it’s being treated as rare.
kydanet 15 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
8484848484 11 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
kittikitti 22 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
11 minutes ago [-]
Rendered at 21:46:27 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
The future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed.
Caveat: that same tiny group is employed by the AI vendors, meaning it's in their financial best interest to make it sound like the curve is going vertical.
There is in fact no indication of this, not evem the precious benchmaxxed benchmarks ya'll love to reference.
There is however a exponential curve of slop, and an ever increasing number of peoples who's minds are completely captured by these things.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the models are some multiplicative factor better on the inside.
Doesn't that mean the demos should work?
Amid all the discussion of sigmoid curves, and where the "LLM wall" will materialise, I think few people would have predicted that the real wall in LLMs would end up being humans' capacity to verify the output.
What I fear is that people simply eschew human review altogether, considering we're talking about the industry that came up with the "move fast and break things" credo. Human review of LLM-produced code where I work is already a farce, and we're not special enough to be one of Karpathy's 5,000. I do my best to manually review anything that's my responsibility, but I'm literally one of very few people left working on my team, so in practice what happens is I submit PRs that are at best glossed over by completely unrelated teams for security, malware/prompt injection, and other serious concerns. Quality insofar as vetting others' code has completely gone out the window and it shows in the number of bug reports that come back, often themselves written in Claudease. This is all on top of everyone cynically phoning it in in the first place, due to the omnipresent sword of Damocles that is additional AI-driven layoffs.
Worse yet all the incentives point to this being the most economically viable thing individual companies can do. I think it goes without saying some type of regulation here is urgently needed, and that an unexpected cause of an AI bubble pop may end up being that humans simply aren't able to keep up with the pace of the output - leading either to precautionary plateauing of capability, or major liability risks related to a decline in quality.
That was the dominant concern in the circles I’m in, so it’s worrisome it’s being treated as rare.