Oddity retweeted
Dusting off this tweet from April because this gap in shared understanding of LLM capability is *widening*. It's now less "two groups of people speaking past each other" and more a sharp funnel.
- Napkin math somewhere around 6B people (~75% of the population) have barely come in contact with LLMs at all.
- Around 1-2B (~20%) are casual and infrequent users of free-tier ChatGPT-like products. This group sees derpy chatbots and treats them a bit like a better Google search, a writing aid, or etc. Maybe an agent tries to book you a flight. I have non-tech friends who (reasonably, imo) say they have not much use for it at all. Even many professionals outside of math&code are in this tier. For example, execs and many other functions spend a lot of their time talking to other people, so while they understand what is happening intellectually, it is still second-hand and a bit abstract.
- Now we get to professional use of frontier-grade LLMs in math&code. Somewhere around 20M people (0.2%) see first-hand that large, complex projects that used to take them weeks/months can now be completed by agents with a prompt. Building apps, copying apps, translating apps, decompiling apps from binaries... This has all happened very quickly and recently - less than 1 year ago, I was writing code manually by hand, typing memorized computer code commands into a code editor character by character, occasionally pressing Tab to autocomplete a little chunk of code.
- And finally we get to the ~5,000 people (~0.00006%) with access to frontier-grade systems internally. The external world has seen the preview. It looks like swarms of thousands of agents collaborating over weeks on software mega projects: minting zero days, running cyber attacks and defenses at machine speeds, discovering new science, advancing the frontier of mathematics. Things that would have taken top professionals in the industry years of work. 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.
The funnel is driven by a combination of factors:
1. The impact scales with ambition, problem size, and horizon. A question with a paragraph answer barely stresses the system. You need a reservoir of big, difficult problems that you really care about. This aspect drives the consumer / professional dimension of the funnel.
2. The jaggedness of the system (which I have written about a lot separately). Capability peaks in domains that are digital, verifiable and economically valuable. This is because LLM capability emerges from reinforcement learning on verifiable rewards on a curated environment mixture driven by revenue potential. This aspect primarily drives the area (e.g. math&code) dimension of the funnel.
3. Access. Free-tier, paid-tier, internal.
So this is the weirdness of the moment. The general public has mostly not interacted with these systems. When they have, it looks like a derpy chatbot. The majority of professionals still see only a modest uplift. And a small sliver of professionals are experiencing the vertigo of the curve going vertical. And it is all happening at the same time.
Judging by my tl there is a growing gap in understanding of AI capability.
The first issue I think is around recency and tier of use. I think a lot of people tried the free tier of ChatGPT somewhere last year and allowed it to inform their views on AI a little too much. This is a group of reactions laughing at various quirks of the models, hallucinations, etc. Yes I also saw the viral videos of OpenAI's Advanced Voice mode fumbling simple queries like "should I drive or walk to the carwash". The thing is that these free and old/deprecated models don't reflect the capability in the latest round of state of the art agentic models of this year, especially OpenAI Codex and Claude Code.
But that brings me to the second issue. Even if people paid $200/month to use the state of the art models, a lot of the capabilities are relatively "peaky" in highly technical areas. Typical queries around search, writing, advice, etc. are *not* the domain that has made the most noticeable and dramatic strides in capability. Partly, this is due to the technical details of reinforcement learning and its use of verifiable rewards. But partly, it's also because these use cases are not sufficiently prioritized by the companies in their hillclimbing because they don't lead to as much $$$ value. The goldmines are elsewhere, and the focus comes along.
So that brings me to the second group of people, who *both* 1) pay for and use the state of the art frontier agentic models (OpenAI Codex / Claude Code) and 2) do so professionally in technical domains like programming, math and research. This group of people is subject to the highest amount of "AI Psychosis" because the recent improvements in these domains as of this year have been nothing short of staggering. When you hand a computer terminal to one of these models, you can now watch them melt programming problems that you'd normally expect to take days/weeks of work. It's this second group of people that assigns a much greater gravity to the capabilities, their slope, and various cyber-related repercussions.
TLDR the people in these two groups are speaking past each other. It really is simultaneously the case that OpenAI's free and I think slightly orphaned (?) "Advanced Voice Mode" will fumble the dumbest questions in your Instagram's reels and *at the same time*, OpenAI's highest-tier and paid Codex model will go off for 1 hour to coherently restructure an entire code base, or find and exploit vulnerabilities in computer systems. This part really works and has made dramatic strides because 2 properties: 1) these domains offer explicit reward functions that are verifiable meaning they are easily amenable to reinforcement learning training (e.g. unit tests passed yes or no, in contrast to writing, which is much harder to explicitly judge), but also 2) they are a lot more valuable in b2b settings, meaning that the biggest fraction of the team is focused on improving them. So here we are.
Oddity retweeted
I'm told Affordability isn't a Problem
I'm told i can just cook at home
Yet, i can go through my Purchase History, the price for the Exact same Product and Exact same Weight has Doubled since 2023.
Oddity retweeted
My first thought wasn’t 'this is a bug.' My first thought was 'which one of you motherfuckers spun up a training job on the entire internet'
Can we please talk about how 3.71% of americans use Yahoo mail?!?!?
But wait... 1% AOL MAIL!?!?!?!?!?!? Whaaaaat...
Oddity retweeted
A lot of programmers are basically fans of programming itself. It’s all about them. They have mastered Rust or Haskell or Zig or whatever, but their objects of veneration are useful mainly as a backdrop to their own cleverness. Anyone who will spend six weeks rewriting a working system in a new language to make the types nicer is more into the rewrite than the product. Extreme technical obsession may serve as a security blanket. If you are the person who knows every flaw in the architecture, every impure abstraction, every place where the old code fails to express its true intent, you already know what to say in every meeting, which is so much safer than asking whether users care.
Your obsession with refactoring is your beard. If you know absolutely all the trivia about borrow checkers, effect systems, async runtimes, and build tools, it saves you from having to know anything about customers, deadlines, support, sales, documentation, or whether the thing actually helps anyone. That’s why it’s excruciatingly boring to talk to such people: they’re always asking you questions they know the answer to, and never shipping anything that answers a question users actually asked.
Oddity retweeted
Happy America 250th whether you celebrate it or not
I'm so thankful to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for dying for me and letting me be a part of this country
And I'm so thankful for the brave men and women who gave their lives to stand up to tyranny
God Bless y'all
Oddity retweeted
FABLE 5 CAME BACK NERFED.
We re-ran the July 1st version of Claude Fable 5 on BridgeBench.
The results are brutal:
Debugging: 86.2 → 25.9
Refactoring: 73.6 → 38.4
Hallucination: 75.9 → 61.7
The new guardrails are kicking in on way too many tasks and falling back to Opus 4.8.
This is not the model that got banned.
Anthropic owes everyone an explanation.
That total to be paid 😂, maybe you should have thought about this before taking on generational debt and hoping the communists pay it off for you.
This quoted post is unavailable.
Oddity retweeted
Anthropic technical staff member @trq212 has shed some light on why they implemented this, saying the code is being rolled back in tomorrow’s release. Thank you for the reply Thariq.

































