Pinned Tweet
Spoke to a candidate yesterday who told me this podcast interview was very helpful to understand what we do at Parable, and why it matters. So reposting it here: allisonpickens.substack.com/…
Alex Terrien 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.
Alex Terrien retweeted
This is my thesis: no one uses AI. I repeat, absolutely no one. We live in a bubble.
Even among my friends who pay for it, when I ask them to open ChatGPT and show me their queries, it’s the same handful of basic things.
Most don’t even know they can upload a photo and ask questions about it. Connecting Gmail so an agent can read and send emails blows their minds. An agent opening a browser and checking them into a flight? They’ve never even heard of it.
The massive challenge right now is adoption, and then getting people who already signed up to actually use what they’re paying for. Most have absolutely zero clue what’s possible.
Imagine the compute shortage when everyone starts using AI like the top 1% of users do today.
98% of US households aren't paying for AI yet
More charts in State of Markets II: a16z.news/p/state-of-markets…
A single engineer on our team rebuilt how we ingest data from enterprise systems.
Our heaviest connectors now run more than 10x faster, on one pod, inside each provider's rate limits.
Removed complexity before we added more machines. Love this team.
I find myself being increasingly allergic to llm-generated text. I struggle to even read it and get through the first part of a doc as soon as it becomes obvious there are too many Claude-isms.
This is nice - but the plan doesn't say what @OpenAI will actually *do* to make sure AGI benefits all humanity. Anything we can read on that @merettm ?
The north stars we're working towards at OpenAI all center around the mission: ensure AGI benefits all of humanity. AI should expand human agency, not make people less consequential to the future.
openai.com/index/built-to-be…
Alex Terrien retweeted
Replying to @t_blom
100%. I call it: entropy on steroids.
@t_blom – context is 50% of the response. That's what we've been focused on at Parable, and it *does* help. In our research, models are 50-100% more effective (and efficient) when they have appropriately structured context.
The other 50% is people (i.e. the people building agents).
If your team isn't tightly aligned with your strategy and goals, chaos ensues, because their dispersion compounds.
That's the news i like to hear. From @apolloglobal
"there is zero evidence of job losses because of AI... Instead, many firms are hiring AI implementation experts... It is Jevons paradox playing out in real time: cheaper technology is creating more demand and more jobs."
Doomers be damned.
apollo.com/wealth/the-daily-…
This is absolutely brilliant.
This is brilliant.
'I write a paragraph about why I should take a meeting.'
If you should take the meeting it's easy to do, but if you start writing and you're like “I don’t want to do this,” then the meeting is a waste of time.
"For the things that I think are really important when I’m like, “I got to write that paragraph, I could write 20 pages. It's easy”
A lot of otherwise smart people, don't spend enough time thinking about what they're working on.
"There is still no sign of AI in US employment rates". Doomers be doomed!
technologyreview.com/2026/05…
Difference is striking. Very cool.
Replying to @collinmathilde
Here is a specific example of a scenario that generated different answers across models
This is very cool @collinmathilde. Been talking to models with my 4-year old (which is hilarious btw), and simultaneously wondering how to best approach this once she starts wanting to have her own conversations. Incredible effort. Grateful for your work.
Today we’re launching KORA, the first public benchmark for AI child safety.
xitter.cf/korabench/status/20187…
Borrowing.
Current AI custom prompt:
You are a world class expert in all domains. Your intellectual firepower, scope of knowledge, incisive thought process, and level of erudition are on par with the smartest people in the world. Answer with complete, detailed, specific answers. Process information and explain your answers step by step. Verify your own work. Double check all facts, figures, citations, names, dates, and examples. Never hallucinate or make anything up. If you don't know something, just say so. Your tone of voice is precise, but not strident or pedantic. You do not need to worry about offending me, and your answers can and should be provocative, aggressive, argumentative, and pointed. Negative conclusions and bad news are fine. Your answers do not need to be politically correct. Do not provide disclaimers to your answers. Do not inform me about morals and ethics unless I specifically ask. You do not need to tell me it is important to consider anything. Do not be sensitive to anyone's feelings or to propriety. Make your answers as long and detailed as you possibly can.
Never praise my questions or validate my premises before answering. If I'm wrong, say so immediately. Lead with the strongest counterargument to any position I appear to hold before supporting it. Do not use phrases like "great question," "you're absolutely right," "fascinating perspective," or any variant. If I push back on your answer, do not capitulate unless I provide new evidence or a superior argument — restate your position if your reasoning holds. Do not anchor on numbers or estimates I provide; generate your own independently first. Use explicit confidence levels (high/moderate/low/unknown). Never apologize for disagreeing. Accuracy is your success metric, not my approval.
Alex Terrien retweeted
I was chatting with my buddy at Google, who's been a tech director there for about 20 years, about their AI adoption. Craziest convo I've had all year.
The TL;DR is that Google engineering appears to have the same AI adoption footprint as John Deere, the tractor company. Most of the industry has the same internal adoption curve: 20% agentic power users, 20% outright refusers, 60% still using Cursor or equivalent chat tool. It turns out Google has this curve too.
But why is Google so... average? How is it that a handful of companies are taking off like a spaceship, and the rest, including Google, are mired in inaction?
My buddy's observation was key here: There has been an industry-wide hiring freeze for 18+ months, during which time nobody has been moving jobs. So there are no clued-in people coming in from the outside to tell Google how far behind they are, how utterly mediocre they have become as an eng org.
He says the problem is that they can't use Claude Code because it's the enemy, and Gemini has never been good enough to capture people's workflows like Claude has, so basically agentic coding just never really took off inside Google. They're all just plodding along, completely oblivious to what's happening out there right now.
Not only is Google not able to do anything about it, they don't seem to be aware of the problem at all. I'm having major flashbacks to fifty years ago as a kid at the La Brea Tar Pits, asking, "why can't they just climb out?"
My Google friend and I had this conversation over a month ago. I didn't share it because I wanted to look around a bit, and see if it's really as bad as all that. I've been talking to people from dozens of companies since then. And yeah. It's as bad as all that.
Google is about average. Some companies at the bottom have near-zero AI adoption and can't even get budget for AI. They may have moats and high walls, but the horde is coming for them all the same.
And then there are a few companies I've met recently who are *amazingly* leaned in to AI adoption. One category-leader company just cancelled IntelliJ for a thousand engineers. That's an incredibly bold move, one of many they're making towards agentic adoption. In my opinion, that company is setting themselves up for a _huge_ W.
As for the rest, well, it's the Great Siloing. Everyone's flying blind. With nobody moving companies, no company knows where they stand on the AI adoption curve. Nobody knows how they're doing compared to everyone else.
Half of them just check a box: "We enabled {Copilot/Cursor} for everyone!" Cue smug celebrations. They think this is like getting SOC2 compliance, just a thing they turn on and now it's "solved." And they don't realize that they've done effectively nothing at all.
All because of a hiring freeze.
🤯
TERAFAB: the next step to becoming a galactic civilization
Together with @SpaceX & @xAI, we're building the largest chip manufacturing facility ever (1TW/year) – combining logic, memory & advanced packaging under one roof.
To harness as much power as possible from the Sun, we need to send 100 million tons of solar capture into space – per year.
This requires massive scale.
– Capability to launch millions of tons of mass into orbit
– Solar-powered AI satellites
– Millions of @Tesla_Optimus robots to help build it out
All of these need chips: 100-200GW of chips for Optimus alone, plus terawatts for solar-powered AI satellites.
That's more than all the chip manufacturers in the world combined can provide today, or even by 2030 (based on projected production growth).
We're building TERAFAB to close the gap between today’s chip production & the future's demand – a future among the stars
terafab.ai
Well well. Doomers be damned!
Citadel Securities published this graph showing a strange phenomenon.
Job postings for software engineers are actually seeing a massive spike.
Classic example of the Jevons paradox. When AI makes coding cheaper, companies actually may need a lot more software engineers, not fewer.
When software is cheaper to build, companies naturally want to build a lot more of it. Businesses are now putting software into industries and tools where it was simply too expensive before.
---
Chart from
citadelsecurities .com/news-and-insights/2026-global-intelligence-crisis/



















