If you read nothing else today, read Matt Shumer on AI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp who works with AI agents - np above is on point. The author is on the inside and frankly doing a public service

Claude skills and cowork has rocked a lot of companies this January. Everyone is sprinting to adopt - it’s not hype or futurist predictions anymore.

This post is such transparent marketing hype. This is all a desperate attempt to make AI happen as these overvalued companies are hemorrhaging money in this silly endeavor.

I’m the np above. Look, I get it, I’m skeptical and lean towards being a Luddite. And AI can do dumb things. One of my co-workers described it as like working with an eager intern who needs to be reined in sometimes. But the changes are real. The improvements in its quality are exponential.

I don’t really know what this means for the future of work, especially for my kids who are still in high school, but this isn’t smoke blowing. Disruptive change is coming.

Ok but what ARE the changes? What are the exponential improvements? Where can I look and see for myself something completed with AI that is really mind-blowing? People keep talking about AI doing things but provide no evidence of AI actually doing the thing. This is not coming from a place of skepticism; it’s just a basic question that no one seems able to answer.

Again, if you read the article, it explains it well. Most people who "use" AI are using older models that are still a bit buggy. There's a new generation, as in the last month, that doesn't just do stuff 80% of the way -- it's 100% now. It's perfect. These two are GPT-5.3 Codex from OpenAI, and Opus 4.6 from Anthropic (the makers of Claude, one of the main competitors to ChatGPT).

The leap, according to the article, is "I describe what I want built, in plain English, and it just... appears. Not a rough draft I need to fix. The finished thing. I tell the AI what I want, walk away from my computer for four hours, and come back to find the work done. Done well, done better than I would have done it myself, with no corrections needed. A couple of months ago, I was going back and forth with the AI, guiding it, making edits. Now I just describe the outcome and leave."

He then goes on to say you can try it for yourself, but you have to pay the $20 and be sure to be using the latest version. "Sign up for the paid version of Claude or ChatGPT. It's $20 a month. But two things matter right away. First: make sure you're using the best model available, not just the default. These apps often default to a faster, dumber model. Dig into the settings or the model picker and select the most capable option. Right now that's GPT-5.2 on ChatGPT or Claude Opus 4.6 on Claude."

So, your question, "Where can I look and see for myself." It's right there. He tells you how to do it.

We are going in circles. I DO use the paid versions of Claude and ChatGPT. I do NOT see this “leap” that the article (by someone with a vested interest in hyping his product) discusses.

WHERE are these amazing things being built by AI without user input? Where are they in YOUR work?

So, you must not be very good at prompting. He covers this, too. My guess is you ask it questions, treating it like it's Google.

As I said, I'm a writer. I can see the dramatic improvements versus the output only a year ago.

Ok. So give us an example of something complete that the AI has written for you. Or better yet, go ahead and use your superior prompting skills to generate something you would use for your work, since it requires virtually no effort from you.

[Anonymous]

Are there any experts on here?

In the article he says "Each generation helps build the next, which is smarter, which builds the next faster, which is smarter still."

Can anyone tell me what about the model is being improved? Is it the core LLM, the RAG, the agentic loop, the hardware integration? Or something else?

[Anonymous]

Can AI predict the next stock crash? Can it solve world hunger? Reduce vehicular deaths? Stop tyrannical dictators? Slow climate change?

I use the free version, but it hasn’t improved my life or my job output. It could not regurgitate simple numbers I fed to it, line by line. Maybe in six months?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp who works with AI agents - np above is on point. The author is on the inside and frankly doing a public service

Claude skills and cowork has rocked a lot of companies this January. Everyone is sprinting to adopt - it’s not hype or futurist predictions anymore.

This post is such transparent marketing hype. This is all a desperate attempt to make AI happen as these overvalued companies are hemorrhaging money in this silly endeavor.

I’m the np above. Look, I get it, I’m skeptical and lean towards being a Luddite. And AI can do dumb things. One of my co-workers described it as like working with an eager intern who needs to be reined in sometimes. But the changes are real. The improvements in its quality are exponential.

I don’t really know what this means for the future of work, especially for my kids who are still in high school, but this isn’t smoke blowing. Disruptive change is coming.

Ok but what ARE the changes? What are the exponential improvements? Where can I look and see for myself something completed with AI that is really mind-blowing? People keep talking about AI doing things but provide no evidence of AI actually doing the thing. This is not coming from a place of skepticism; it’s just a basic question that no one seems able to answer.

Again, if you read the article, it explains it well. Most people who "use" AI are using older models that are still a bit buggy. There's a new generation, as in the last month, that doesn't just do stuff 80% of the way -- it's 100% now. It's perfect. These two are GPT-5.3 Codex from OpenAI, and Opus 4.6 from Anthropic (the makers of Claude, one of the main competitors to ChatGPT).

The leap, according to the article, is "I describe what I want built, in plain English, and it just... appears. Not a rough draft I need to fix. The finished thing. I tell the AI what I want, walk away from my computer for four hours, and come back to find the work done. Done well, done better than I would have done it myself, with no corrections needed. A couple of months ago, I was going back and forth with the AI, guiding it, making edits. Now I just describe the outcome and leave."

He then goes on to say you can try it for yourself, but you have to pay the $20 and be sure to be using the latest version. "Sign up for the paid version of Claude or ChatGPT. It's $20 a month. But two things matter right away. First: make sure you're using the best model available, not just the default. These apps often default to a faster, dumber model. Dig into the settings or the model picker and select the most capable option. Right now that's GPT-5.2 on ChatGPT or Claude Opus 4.6 on Claude."

So, your question, "Where can I look and see for myself." It's right there. He tells you how to do it.

We are going in circles. I DO use the paid versions of Claude and ChatGPT. I do NOT see this “leap” that the article (by someone with a vested interest in hyping his product) discusses.

WHERE are these amazing things being built by AI without user input? Where are they in YOUR work?

So, you must not be very good at prompting. He covers this, too. My guess is you ask it questions, treating it like it's Google.

As I said, I'm a writer. I can see the dramatic improvements versus the output only a year ago.

Ok. So give us an example of something complete that the AI has written for you. Or better yet, go ahead and use your superior prompting skills to generate something you would use for your work, since it requires virtually no effort from you.

I'm literally doing that right now, producing thought leadership to make a case for cosourcing certain professional services. That's all I can say without revealing too much of my identity. I was having trouble making sense of a couple of interviews I had with executives earlier this week, so I uploaded my notes from those interviews to an AI and asked it to generate a 1,000-word article that incorporates them along with the findings of a couple of recent survey reports and at the moment I'm playing around with whether or not I want the output suitable for a LinkedIn post or an article for our website. This involves a series of prompts. But the immediate output is heads and shoulders better than anything from a year ago and was generated in seconds versus something that might have taken me several hours to do, especially since I was having some trouble wrapping my head around the angle for this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp who works with AI agents - np above is on point. The author is on the inside and frankly doing a public service

Claude skills and cowork has rocked a lot of companies this January. Everyone is sprinting to adopt - it’s not hype or futurist predictions anymore.

This post is such transparent marketing hype. This is all a desperate attempt to make AI happen as these overvalued companies are hemorrhaging money in this silly endeavor.

I’m the np above. Look, I get it, I’m skeptical and lean towards being a Luddite. And AI can do dumb things. One of my co-workers described it as like working with an eager intern who needs to be reined in sometimes. But the changes are real. The improvements in its quality are exponential.

I don’t really know what this means for the future of work, especially for my kids who are still in high school, but this isn’t smoke blowing. Disruptive change is coming.

Ok but what ARE the changes? What are the exponential improvements? Where can I look and see for myself something completed with AI that is really mind-blowing? People keep talking about AI doing things but provide no evidence of AI actually doing the thing. This is not coming from a place of skepticism; it’s just a basic question that no one seems able to answer.

Again, if you read the article, it explains it well. Most people who "use" AI are using older models that are still a bit buggy. There's a new generation, as in the last month, that doesn't just do stuff 80% of the way -- it's 100% now. It's perfect. These two are GPT-5.3 Codex from OpenAI, and Opus 4.6 from Anthropic (the makers of Claude, one of the main competitors to ChatGPT).

The leap, according to the article, is "I describe what I want built, in plain English, and it just... appears. Not a rough draft I need to fix. The finished thing. I tell the AI what I want, walk away from my computer for four hours, and come back to find the work done. Done well, done better than I would have done it myself, with no corrections needed. A couple of months ago, I was going back and forth with the AI, guiding it, making edits. Now I just describe the outcome and leave."

He then goes on to say you can try it for yourself, but you have to pay the $20 and be sure to be using the latest version. "Sign up for the paid version of Claude or ChatGPT. It's $20 a month. But two things matter right away. First: make sure you're using the best model available, not just the default. These apps often default to a faster, dumber model. Dig into the settings or the model picker and select the most capable option. Right now that's GPT-5.2 on ChatGPT or Claude Opus 4.6 on Claude."

So, your question, "Where can I look and see for myself." It's right there. He tells you how to do it.

We are going in circles. I DO use the paid versions of Claude and ChatGPT. I do NOT see this “leap” that the article (by someone with a vested interest in hyping his product) discusses.

WHERE are these amazing things being built by AI without user input? Where are they in YOUR work?

So, you must not be very good at prompting. He covers this, too. My guess is you ask it questions, treating it like it's Google.

As I said, I'm a writer. I can see the dramatic improvements versus the output only a year ago.

Ok. So give us an example of something complete that the AI has written for you. Or better yet, go ahead and use your superior prompting skills to generate something you would use for your work, since it requires virtually no effort from you.

I'm literally doing that right now, producing thought leadership to make a case for cosourcing certain professional services. That's all I can say without revealing too much of my identity. I was having trouble making sense of a couple of interviews I had with executives earlier this week, so I uploaded my notes from those interviews to an AI and asked it to generate a 1,000-word article that incorporates them along with the findings of a couple of recent survey reports and at the moment I'm playing around with whether or not I want the output suitable for a LinkedIn post or an article for our website. This involves a series of prompts. But the immediate output is heads and shoulders better than anything from a year ago and was generated in seconds versus something that might have taken me several hours to do, especially since I was having some trouble wrapping my head around the angle for this one.

Don't get me wrong- that is great that it saved you time. That is an outstanding productivity tool. But we had an intern who was using AI to write blog posts for our website in 2023. The writing you are describing is something LLMs excel at because they are a pattern recognition tool. Summarizing an interview, writing notes of a transcript, etc., doesn't require complex technical or legal analysis. And your linked in blurb or website article isn't going to make or break your career or your company. It's a sort of "want-to-have" that you saved a lot of time on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp who works with AI agents - np above is on point. The author is on the inside and frankly doing a public service

Claude skills and cowork has rocked a lot of companies this January. Everyone is sprinting to adopt - it’s not hype or futurist predictions anymore.

This post is such transparent marketing hype. This is all a desperate attempt to make AI happen as these overvalued companies are hemorrhaging money in this silly endeavor.

I’m the np above. Look, I get it, I’m skeptical and lean towards being a Luddite. And AI can do dumb things. One of my co-workers described it as like working with an eager intern who needs to be reined in sometimes. But the changes are real. The improvements in its quality are exponential.

I don’t really know what this means for the future of work, especially for my kids who are still in high school, but this isn’t smoke blowing. Disruptive change is coming.

Ok but what ARE the changes? What are the exponential improvements? Where can I look and see for myself something completed with AI that is really mind-blowing? People keep talking about AI doing things but provide no evidence of AI actually doing the thing. This is not coming from a place of skepticism; it’s just a basic question that no one seems able to answer.

Again, if you read the article, it explains it well. Most people who "use" AI are using older models that are still a bit buggy. There's a new generation, as in the last month, that doesn't just do stuff 80% of the way -- it's 100% now. It's perfect. These two are GPT-5.3 Codex from OpenAI, and Opus 4.6 from Anthropic (the makers of Claude, one of the main competitors to ChatGPT).

The leap, according to the article, is "I describe what I want built, in plain English, and it just... appears. Not a rough draft I need to fix. The finished thing. I tell the AI what I want, walk away from my computer for four hours, and come back to find the work done. Done well, done better than I would have done it myself, with no corrections needed. A couple of months ago, I was going back and forth with the AI, guiding it, making edits. Now I just describe the outcome and leave."

He then goes on to say you can try it for yourself, but you have to pay the $20 and be sure to be using the latest version. "Sign up for the paid version of Claude or ChatGPT. It's $20 a month. But two things matter right away. First: make sure you're using the best model available, not just the default. These apps often default to a faster, dumber model. Dig into the settings or the model picker and select the most capable option. Right now that's GPT-5.2 on ChatGPT or Claude Opus 4.6 on Claude."

So, your question, "Where can I look and see for myself." It's right there. He tells you how to do it.

We are going in circles. I DO use the paid versions of Claude and ChatGPT. I do NOT see this “leap” that the article (by someone with a vested interest in hyping his product) discusses.

WHERE are these amazing things being built by AI without user input? Where are they in YOUR work?

So, you must not be very good at prompting. He covers this, too. My guess is you ask it questions, treating it like it's Google.

As I said, I'm a writer. I can see the dramatic improvements versus the output only a year ago.

Ok. So give us an example of something complete that the AI has written for you. Or better yet, go ahead and use your superior prompting skills to generate something you would use for your work, since it requires virtually no effort from you.

I'm literally doing that right now, producing thought leadership to make a case for cosourcing certain professional services. That's all I can say without revealing too much of my identity. I was having trouble making sense of a couple of interviews I had with executives earlier this week, so I uploaded my notes from those interviews to an AI and asked it to generate a 1,000-word article that incorporates them along with the findings of a couple of recent survey reports and at the moment I'm playing around with whether or not I want the output suitable for a LinkedIn post or an article for our website. This involves a series of prompts. But the immediate output is heads and shoulders better than anything from a year ago and was generated in seconds versus something that might have taken me several hours to do, especially since I was having some trouble wrapping my head around the angle for this one.

Don't get me wrong- that is great that it saved you time. That is an outstanding productivity tool. But we had an intern who was using AI to write blog posts for our website in 2023. The writing you are describing is something LLMs excel at because they are a pattern recognition tool. Summarizing an interview, writing notes of a transcript, etc., doesn't require complex technical or legal analysis. And your linked in blurb or website article isn't going to make or break your career or your company. It's a sort of "want-to-have" that you saved a lot of time on.

That isn't the point. A year ago, the output was garbage. Now it's excellent.

I'm just a writer. Someone still had to interview the executives and prompt it. But if it's doing this for me, I can only imagine what it's doing for other disciplines. No one needs coders anymore, for example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp who works with AI agents - np above is on point. The author is on the inside and frankly doing a public service

Claude skills and cowork has rocked a lot of companies this January. Everyone is sprinting to adopt - it’s not hype or futurist predictions anymore.

This post is such transparent marketing hype. This is all a desperate attempt to make AI happen as these overvalued companies are hemorrhaging money in this silly endeavor.

I’m the np above. Look, I get it, I’m skeptical and lean towards being a Luddite. And AI can do dumb things. One of my co-workers described it as like working with an eager intern who needs to be reined in sometimes. But the changes are real. The improvements in its quality are exponential.

I don’t really know what this means for the future of work, especially for my kids who are still in high school, but this isn’t smoke blowing. Disruptive change is coming.

Ok but what ARE the changes? What are the exponential improvements? Where can I look and see for myself something completed with AI that is really mind-blowing? People keep talking about AI doing things but provide no evidence of AI actually doing the thing. This is not coming from a place of skepticism; it’s just a basic question that no one seems able to answer.

Again, if you read the article, it explains it well. Most people who "use" AI are using older models that are still a bit buggy. There's a new generation, as in the last month, that doesn't just do stuff 80% of the way -- it's 100% now. It's perfect. These two are GPT-5.3 Codex from OpenAI, and Opus 4.6 from Anthropic (the makers of Claude, one of the main competitors to ChatGPT).

The leap, according to the article, is "I describe what I want built, in plain English, and it just... appears. Not a rough draft I need to fix. The finished thing. I tell the AI what I want, walk away from my computer for four hours, and come back to find the work done. Done well, done better than I would have done it myself, with no corrections needed. A couple of months ago, I was going back and forth with the AI, guiding it, making edits. Now I just describe the outcome and leave."

He then goes on to say you can try it for yourself, but you have to pay the $20 and be sure to be using the latest version. "Sign up for the paid version of Claude or ChatGPT. It's $20 a month. But two things matter right away. First: make sure you're using the best model available, not just the default. These apps often default to a faster, dumber model. Dig into the settings or the model picker and select the most capable option. Right now that's GPT-5.2 on ChatGPT or Claude Opus 4.6 on Claude."

So, your question, "Where can I look and see for myself." It's right there. He tells you how to do it.

Can you ask it what marketing means?

[Anonymous]

i look forward to reducing hollywood with ai

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i look forward to reducing hollywood with ai

Let's work together on that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp who works with AI agents - np above is on point. The author is on the inside and frankly doing a public service

Claude skills and cowork has rocked a lot of companies this January. Everyone is sprinting to adopt - it’s not hype or futurist predictions anymore.

This post is such transparent marketing hype. This is all a desperate attempt to make AI happen as these overvalued companies are hemorrhaging money in this silly endeavor.

I’m the np above. Look, I get it, I’m skeptical and lean towards being a Luddite. And AI can do dumb things. One of my co-workers described it as like working with an eager intern who needs to be reined in sometimes. But the changes are real. The improvements in its quality are exponential.

I don’t really know what this means for the future of work, especially for my kids who are still in high school, but this isn’t smoke blowing. Disruptive change is coming.

Ok but what ARE the changes? What are the exponential improvements? Where can I look and see for myself something completed with AI that is really mind-blowing? People keep talking about AI doing things but provide no evidence of AI actually doing the thing. This is not coming from a place of skepticism; it’s just a basic question that no one seems able to answer.

Again, if you read the article, it explains it well. Most people who "use" AI are using older models that are still a bit buggy. There's a new generation, as in the last month, that doesn't just do stuff 80% of the way -- it's 100% now. It's perfect. These two are GPT-5.3 Codex from OpenAI, and Opus 4.6 from Anthropic (the makers of Claude, one of the main competitors to ChatGPT).

The leap, according to the article, is "I describe what I want built, in plain English, and it just... appears. Not a rough draft I need to fix. The finished thing. I tell the AI what I want, walk away from my computer for four hours, and come back to find the work done. Done well, done better than I would have done it myself, with no corrections needed. A couple of months ago, I was going back and forth with the AI, guiding it, making edits. Now I just describe the outcome and leave."

He then goes on to say you can try it for yourself, but you have to pay the $20 and be sure to be using the latest version. "Sign up for the paid version of Claude or ChatGPT. It's $20 a month. But two things matter right away. First: make sure you're using the best model available, not just the default. These apps often default to a faster, dumber model. Dig into the settings or the model picker and select the most capable option. Right now that's GPT-5.2 on ChatGPT or Claude Opus 4.6 on Claude."

So, your question, "Where can I look and see for myself." It's right there. He tells you how to do it.

Can you ask it what marketing means?

Brain the size of a planet...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp who works with AI agents - np above is on point. The author is on the inside and frankly doing a public service

Claude skills and cowork has rocked a lot of companies this January. Everyone is sprinting to adopt - it’s not hype or futurist predictions anymore.

This post is such transparent marketing hype. This is all a desperate attempt to make AI happen as these overvalued companies are hemorrhaging money in this silly endeavor.

I’m the np above. Look, I get it, I’m skeptical and lean towards being a Luddite. And AI can do dumb things. One of my co-workers described it as like working with an eager intern who needs to be reined in sometimes. But the changes are real. The improvements in its quality are exponential.

I don’t really know what this means for the future of work, especially for my kids who are still in high school, but this isn’t smoke blowing. Disruptive change is coming.

Ok but what ARE the changes? What are the exponential improvements? Where can I look and see for myself something completed with AI that is really mind-blowing? People keep talking about AI doing things but provide no evidence of AI actually doing the thing. This is not coming from a place of skepticism; it’s just a basic question that no one seems able to answer.

Again, if you read the article, it explains it well. Most people who "use" AI are using older models that are still a bit buggy. There's a new generation, as in the last month, that doesn't just do stuff 80% of the way -- it's 100% now. It's perfect. These two are GPT-5.3 Codex from OpenAI, and Opus 4.6 from Anthropic (the makers of Claude, one of the main competitors to ChatGPT).

The leap, according to the article, is "I describe what I want built, in plain English, and it just... appears. Not a rough draft I need to fix. The finished thing. I tell the AI what I want, walk away from my computer for four hours, and come back to find the work done. Done well, done better than I would have done it myself, with no corrections needed. A couple of months ago, I was going back and forth with the AI, guiding it, making edits. Now I just describe the outcome and leave."

He then goes on to say you can try it for yourself, but you have to pay the $20 and be sure to be using the latest version. "Sign up for the paid version of Claude or ChatGPT. It's $20 a month. But two things matter right away. First: make sure you're using the best model available, not just the default. These apps often default to a faster, dumber model. Dig into the settings or the model picker and select the most capable option. Right now that's GPT-5.2 on ChatGPT or Claude Opus 4.6 on Claude."

So, your question, "Where can I look and see for myself." It's right there. He tells you how to do it.

Can you ask it what marketing means?

The writer is not affiliated with either of those companies and doesn't stand to gain if you pay $20 a month to either of them. If it's marketing, being apocalyptic is a strange message.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp who works with AI agents - np above is on point. The author is on the inside and frankly doing a public service

Claude skills and cowork has rocked a lot of companies this January. Everyone is sprinting to adopt - it’s not hype or futurist predictions anymore.

This post is such transparent marketing hype. This is all a desperate attempt to make AI happen as these overvalued companies are hemorrhaging money in this silly endeavor.

I’m the np above. Look, I get it, I’m skeptical and lean towards being a Luddite. And AI can do dumb things. One of my co-workers described it as like working with an eager intern who needs to be reined in sometimes. But the changes are real. The improvements in its quality are exponential.

I don’t really know what this means for the future of work, especially for my kids who are still in high school, but this isn’t smoke blowing. Disruptive change is coming.

Ok but what ARE the changes? What are the exponential improvements? Where can I look and see for myself something completed with AI that is really mind-blowing? People keep talking about AI doing things but provide no evidence of AI actually doing the thing. This is not coming from a place of skepticism; it’s just a basic question that no one seems able to answer.

Again, if you read the article, it explains it well. Most people who "use" AI are using older models that are still a bit buggy. There's a new generation, as in the last month, that doesn't just do stuff 80% of the way -- it's 100% now. It's perfect. These two are GPT-5.3 Codex from OpenAI, and Opus 4.6 from Anthropic (the makers of Claude, one of the main competitors to ChatGPT).

The leap, according to the article, is "I describe what I want built, in plain English, and it just... appears. Not a rough draft I need to fix. The finished thing. I tell the AI what I want, walk away from my computer for four hours, and come back to find the work done. Done well, done better than I would have done it myself, with no corrections needed. A couple of months ago, I was going back and forth with the AI, guiding it, making edits. Now I just describe the outcome and leave."

He then goes on to say you can try it for yourself, but you have to pay the $20 and be sure to be using the latest version. "Sign up for the paid version of Claude or ChatGPT. It's $20 a month. But two things matter right away. First: make sure you're using the best model available, not just the default. These apps often default to a faster, dumber model. Dig into the settings or the model picker and select the most capable option. Right now that's GPT-5.2 on ChatGPT or Claude Opus 4.6 on Claude."

So, your question, "Where can I look and see for myself." It's right there. He tells you how to do it.

We are going in circles. I DO use the paid versions of Claude and ChatGPT. I do NOT see this “leap” that the article (by someone with a vested interest in hyping his product) discusses.

WHERE are these amazing things being built by AI without user input? Where are they in YOUR work?

So, you must not be very good at prompting. He covers this, too. My guess is you ask it questions, treating it like it's Google.

As I said, I'm a writer. I can see the dramatic improvements versus the output only a year ago.

Ok. So give us an example of something complete that the AI has written for you. Or better yet, go ahead and use your superior prompting skills to generate something you would use for your work, since it requires virtually no effort from you.

I'm literally doing that right now, producing thought leadership to make a case for cosourcing certain professional services. That's all I can say without revealing too much of my identity. I was having trouble making sense of a couple of interviews I had with executives earlier this week, so I uploaded my notes from those interviews to an AI and asked it to generate a 1,000-word article that incorporates them along with the findings of a couple of recent survey reports and at the moment I'm playing around with whether or not I want the output suitable for a LinkedIn post or an article for our website. This involves a series of prompts. But the immediate output is heads and shoulders better than anything from a year ago and was generated in seconds versus something that might have taken me several hours to do, especially since I was having some trouble wrapping my head around the angle for this one.

Don't get me wrong- that is great that it saved you time. That is an outstanding productivity tool. But we had an intern who was using AI to write blog posts for our website in 2023. The writing you are describing is something LLMs excel at because they are a pattern recognition tool. Summarizing an interview, writing notes of a transcript, etc., doesn't require complex technical or legal analysis. And your linked in blurb or website article isn't going to make or break your career or your company. It's a sort of "want-to-have" that you saved a lot of time on.

That isn't the point. A year ago, the output was garbage. Now it's excellent.

I'm just a writer. Someone still had to interview the executives and prompt it. But if it's doing this for me, I can only imagine what it's doing for other disciplines. No one needs coders anymore, for example.

You’re a writer who didn’t understand words and ideas communicated directly to you in person by executives. So you asked AI to help you write something that makes it look like you know what the f—k you’re doing. Since you admit to not having understood the assignment in the first place, by what logic do you think you’re qualified to judge the AI output?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If things are really as good/bad as he says they are then I don’t see what anyone can do.

I do agree that telling your kids to focus on learning/adapting as a skill vs particular subject matters or jobs makes sense but if all he needs to do is tell the AI “build me an app that does x y and z” then it’s kind of stupid to tell me to spend an hour a day “practicing” with Claude.

It’s very hard to tell how much of AI is inevitable and how much people just want it to be inevitable, but if it is inevitable at the level he is talking about then his advice is basically just sticking a finger in the dike and waiting for the economy to implode.

I am also really curious where these law firms expect to find senior partners and if AI replaces all the junior associates.

This is what I’ve been saying. How will you have senior developers if you never have junior developers?

It really just means that the entry level job will be a different kind of job at a different step in the work flow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp who works with AI agents - np above is on point. The author is on the inside and frankly doing a public service

Claude skills and cowork has rocked a lot of companies this January. Everyone is sprinting to adopt - it’s not hype or futurist predictions anymore.

This post is such transparent marketing hype. This is all a desperate attempt to make AI happen as these overvalued companies are hemorrhaging money in this silly endeavor.

I’m the np above. Look, I get it, I’m skeptical and lean towards being a Luddite. And AI can do dumb things. One of my co-workers described it as like working with an eager intern who needs to be reined in sometimes. But the changes are real. The improvements in its quality are exponential.

I don’t really know what this means for the future of work, especially for my kids who are still in high school, but this isn’t smoke blowing. Disruptive change is coming.

Ok but what ARE the changes? What are the exponential improvements? Where can I look and see for myself something completed with AI that is really mind-blowing? People keep talking about AI doing things but provide no evidence of AI actually doing the thing. This is not coming from a place of skepticism; it’s just a basic question that no one seems able to answer.

Again, if you read the article, it explains it well. Most people who "use" AI are using older models that are still a bit buggy. There's a new generation, as in the last month, that doesn't just do stuff 80% of the way -- it's 100% now. It's perfect. These two are GPT-5.3 Codex from OpenAI, and Opus 4.6 from Anthropic (the makers of Claude, one of the main competitors to ChatGPT).

The leap, according to the article, is "I describe what I want built, in plain English, and it just... appears. Not a rough draft I need to fix. The finished thing. I tell the AI what I want, walk away from my computer for four hours, and come back to find the work done. Done well, done better than I would have done it myself, with no corrections needed. A couple of months ago, I was going back and forth with the AI, guiding it, making edits. Now I just describe the outcome and leave."

He then goes on to say you can try it for yourself, but you have to pay the $20 and be sure to be using the latest version. "Sign up for the paid version of Claude or ChatGPT. It's $20 a month. But two things matter right away. First: make sure you're using the best model available, not just the default. These apps often default to a faster, dumber model. Dig into the settings or the model picker and select the most capable option. Right now that's GPT-5.2 on ChatGPT or Claude Opus 4.6 on Claude."

So, your question, "Where can I look and see for myself." It's right there. He tells you how to do it.

We are going in circles. I DO use the paid versions of Claude and ChatGPT. I do NOT see this “leap” that the article (by someone with a vested interest in hyping his product) discusses.

WHERE are these amazing things being built by AI without user input? Where are they in YOUR work?

So, you must not be very good at prompting. He covers this, too. My guess is you ask it questions, treating it like it's Google.

As I said, I'm a writer. I can see the dramatic improvements versus the output only a year ago.

Ok. So give us an example of something complete that the AI has written for you. Or better yet, go ahead and use your superior prompting skills to generate something you would use for your work, since it requires virtually no effort from you.

I'm literally doing that right now, producing thought leadership to make a case for cosourcing certain professional services. That's all I can say without revealing too much of my identity. I was having trouble making sense of a couple of interviews I had with executives earlier this week, so I uploaded my notes from those interviews to an AI and asked it to generate a 1,000-word article that incorporates them along with the findings of a couple of recent survey reports and at the moment I'm playing around with whether or not I want the output suitable for a LinkedIn post or an article for our website. This involves a series of prompts. But the immediate output is heads and shoulders better than anything from a year ago and was generated in seconds versus something that might have taken me several hours to do, especially since I was having some trouble wrapping my head around the angle for this one.

Don't get me wrong- that is great that it saved you time. That is an outstanding productivity tool. But we had an intern who was using AI to write blog posts for our website in 2023. The writing you are describing is something LLMs excel at because they are a pattern recognition tool. Summarizing an interview, writing notes of a transcript, etc., doesn't require complex technical or legal analysis. And your linked in blurb or website article isn't going to make or break your career or your company. It's a sort of "want-to-have" that you saved a lot of time on.

That isn't the point. A year ago, the output was garbage. Now it's excellent.

I'm just a writer. Someone still had to interview the executives and prompt it. But if it's doing this for me, I can only imagine what it's doing for other disciplines. No one needs coders anymore, for example.

If you didn't understand the content to begin with, how do you know the output is "excellent"? To me, this is the biggest problem with agentic AI - just because now anyone can produce something that previously, mostly experts produced, doesn't mean they are producing expert-quality things. I am a proponent of AI/ML applications where we used to leverage "supercomputers" - massive computational loads and pattern identification that can be made exponentially faster and more thorough than human review. But take a look at how well this is going in a critical 'real-world' application: https://www.reuters.com/investigations/ai-enters-operating-room-reports-arise-botched-surgeries-misidentified-body-2026-02-09/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp who works with AI agents - np above is on point. The author is on the inside and frankly doing a public service

Claude skills and cowork has rocked a lot of companies this January. Everyone is sprinting to adopt - it’s not hype or futurist predictions anymore.

This post is such transparent marketing hype. This is all a desperate attempt to make AI happen as these overvalued companies are hemorrhaging money in this silly endeavor.

I’m the np above. Look, I get it, I’m skeptical and lean towards being a Luddite. And AI can do dumb things. One of my co-workers described it as like working with an eager intern who needs to be reined in sometimes. But the changes are real. The improvements in its quality are exponential.

I don’t really know what this means for the future of work, especially for my kids who are still in high school, but this isn’t smoke blowing. Disruptive change is coming.

Ok but what ARE the changes? What are the exponential improvements? Where can I look and see for myself something completed with AI that is really mind-blowing? People keep talking about AI doing things but provide no evidence of AI actually doing the thing. This is not coming from a place of skepticism; it’s just a basic question that no one seems able to answer.

Again, if you read the article, it explains it well. Most people who "use" AI are using older models that are still a bit buggy. There's a new generation, as in the last month, that doesn't just do stuff 80% of the way -- it's 100% now. It's perfect. These two are GPT-5.3 Codex from OpenAI, and Opus 4.6 from Anthropic (the makers of Claude, one of the main competitors to ChatGPT).

The leap, according to the article, is "I describe what I want built, in plain English, and it just... appears. Not a rough draft I need to fix. The finished thing. I tell the AI what I want, walk away from my computer for four hours, and come back to find the work done. Done well, done better than I would have done it myself, with no corrections needed. A couple of months ago, I was going back and forth with the AI, guiding it, making edits. Now I just describe the outcome and leave."

He then goes on to say you can try it for yourself, but you have to pay the $20 and be sure to be using the latest version. "Sign up for the paid version of Claude or ChatGPT. It's $20 a month. But two things matter right away. First: make sure you're using the best model available, not just the default. These apps often default to a faster, dumber model. Dig into the settings or the model picker and select the most capable option. Right now that's GPT-5.2 on ChatGPT or Claude Opus 4.6 on Claude."

So, your question, "Where can I look and see for myself." It's right there. He tells you how to do it.

We are going in circles. I DO use the paid versions of Claude and ChatGPT. I do NOT see this “leap” that the article (by someone with a vested interest in hyping his product) discusses.

WHERE are these amazing things being built by AI without user input? Where are they in YOUR work?

So, you must not be very good at prompting. He covers this, too. My guess is you ask it questions, treating it like it's Google.

As I said, I'm a writer. I can see the dramatic improvements versus the output only a year ago.

Ok. So give us an example of something complete that the AI has written for you. Or better yet, go ahead and use your superior prompting skills to generate something you would use for your work, since it requires virtually no effort from you.

I'm literally doing that right now, producing thought leadership to make a case for cosourcing certain professional services. That's all I can say without revealing too much of my identity. I was having trouble making sense of a couple of interviews I had with executives earlier this week, so I uploaded my notes from those interviews to an AI and asked it to generate a 1,000-word article that incorporates them along with the findings of a couple of recent survey reports and at the moment I'm playing around with whether or not I want the output suitable for a LinkedIn post or an article for our website. This involves a series of prompts. But the immediate output is heads and shoulders better than anything from a year ago and was generated in seconds versus something that might have taken me several hours to do, especially since I was having some trouble wrapping my head around the angle for this one.

Don't get me wrong- that is great that it saved you time. That is an outstanding productivity tool. But we had an intern who was using AI to write blog posts for our website in 2023. The writing you are describing is something LLMs excel at because they are a pattern recognition tool. Summarizing an interview, writing notes of a transcript, etc., doesn't require complex technical or legal analysis. And your linked in blurb or website article isn't going to make or break your career or your company. It's a sort of "want-to-have" that you saved a lot of time on.

That isn't the point. A year ago, the output was garbage. Now it's excellent.

I'm just a writer. Someone still had to interview the executives and prompt it. But if it's doing this for me, I can only imagine what it's doing for other disciplines. No one needs coders anymore, for example.

You’re a writer who didn’t understand words and ideas communicated directly to you in person by executives. So you asked AI to help you write something that makes it look like you know what the f—k you’re doing. Since you admit to not having understood the assignment in the first place, by what logic do you think you’re qualified to judge the AI output?

My guy. I've published in the New Yorker, the New York Times, Slate, the Atlantic, Conde Naste and many others. I understand the assignment just fine. Is there some reason you decided to be a rude jackass? Are you having a bad day? Did someone cut you off in traffic? Or were you just raised poorly by shitty parents?