Post #1146628

2026-04-14 12:02 UTC

![Soon, at each new model of AI along the current capability curve, you will start to see large discrete jumps in ability in economically important areas, because the previous AI ability level in some aspect of the job just wasn’t good enough and bottlenecked progress. When bottlenecks are released, it looks like a leap forward. It is going to look like unexpected gains in AI capacity, and, indeed there is no sign that the current exponential ability curve is slowing down (so far), but it is going to be like what happened in coding: as soon as models crossed a certain threshold (with Opus 4.5, GPT-5.2, and Gemini 3), suddenly Claude Code & Codex were viable. Before that, it was all about coding assistance, afterwards it was all about agents from despite relatively small gains in model ability.](awful.systems/…/3eb7c440-aa86-4a4b-b0b8-c548fb45b…) There is just something so inherently smug and annoying about Mollick. He is one of those low information boosters whose posts sound intellectual until you really think about them. Tell me more about how the pile of cursed spaghetti that is Claude code is now viable due to model breakthroughs. All I see are hype men saying “the new model is a team of PhDs in your pocket” and then releasing disappointing updates or saying “the new model is too dangerous” because they have some vaporware powered by human crowdsourcing. Also coding is not like other areas - you can test for hallucinations by compiling and printing and running tests. I guess my first mistake this morning was opening linkedin

Replies (2)

@o7___o7@awful.systems 2026-04-14 13:22

“Cursed spaghetti” 🤌

Open ##1147121
@YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 2026-04-14 20:08

I’ve never understood how these things are simultaneously gaining their abilities based on statistical analysis of all kinds of random writings online including social media, fanfic, reddit, etc. but also are simultaneously supposed to end up as experts rather than a much faster and more agreeable dumbass. Like, the training data may include all the great works of literature, all the scrapable scientific studies and textbooks they could steal, and so on. But it also included every moron who ever shared conspiracy theories on Twitter, every confident-sounding business idiot on LinkedIn, and every stupid word that Scott or Yud ever wrote. Surely the bullshit has to exceed the expertise by raw volume, and if they took the time and energy to curate it out the way they would need to to correct that they wouldn’t be left with a large enough sample to actually scale off of. Basically, either I’m dramatically misunderstanding something or the best we can hope for is the Average Joe on Reddit, who may not be a complete dumbass but definitely isn’t a team of PhDs.

Open ##1149789