Tag: claude

Categories
AI AI: Large Language Models Anthropic

Breakout

Jack Clark doesn’t panic easily. He spent years at OpenAI watching capabilities inch upward, then left to co-found Anthropic, and has been writing his Import AI newsletter long enough to have developed — and been wrong about — many priors. So when he publishes an essay saying he has reluctantly arrived at a 60% probability that fully automated AI R&D happens by the end of 2028, the word “reluctantly” deserves some weight.

His essay, published last week and titled “Automating AI Research,” isn’t a press release or a fundraising pitch. It reads more like a man thinking out loud at the edge of something large. “I don’t know how to wrap my head around it,” he writes, which is a notable thing to say publicly when you are one of the architects of the thing you can’t wrap your head around.

The argument is built from benchmarks — not any single one, but a mosaic of them assembled to reveal a trend. SWE-Bench, the test that measures an AI’s ability to solve real GitHub issues, was at roughly 2% when it launched in late 2023. A recent Anthropic model sits at 93.9%, effectively saturating it. METR’s time-horizon plot tracks how long an AI can work independently before needing human recalibration: 30 seconds in 2022, 4 minutes in 2023, 40 minutes in 2024, 6 hours in 2025, 12 hours today. The trajectory, if it holds, suggests 100-hour autonomous work sessions by the end of this year.

Clark marshals similar progressions across AI fine-tuning, kernel design, scientific paper replication, and even alignment research itself. His throughline is the same in each: AI is now genuinely competent at the unglamorous scaffolding of AI development — the debugging, the experiment runs, the parameter sweeps, the code reviews. And crucially, it can now do these things not just faster than humans, but for longer, with less supervision.

There’s a Thomas Edison quote at the center of the essay: “Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.” Clark’s claim is that AI has become very good at the perspiration. The question of whether it can supply the inspiration — the paradigm-shifting insight, the Move 37 — remains open. But he argues it may not need to. Most of what has moved the AI field forward has been sustained, methodical work, not lone flashes of genius. If you can automate the 99%, you have something that compounds.

There’s a data point that makes Clark’s argument feel less like forecast and more like dispatch. Last month Boris Cherny, who runs Anthropic’s Claude Code, disclosed that he hasn’t written a line of code by hand in more than two months. Every pull request — 22 one day, 27 the next — written entirely by Claude. Company-wide, roughly 70–90% of Anthropic’s code is now AI-generated. Anthropic’s stated position: “We build Claude with Claude.” The loop Clark is describing as a probability by 2028 is already running, at least partially, today.

The word Clark uses for the threshold he’s describing is not “singularity” or “AGI.” It’s quieter than that. He calls it “automated AI R&D” — the point at which a frontier model can autonomously train its own successor. It’s a specific, falsifiable thing. And he puts a number on it: 60% by end of 2028, 30% by end of 2027.

I’ve been writing about the dark software factory and the 3D printer that prints better printers, finding metaphors for what seems like an inexorable process. Clark’s essay is a different kind of writing about the same thing — the primary source document, the engineer’s log, the inventory of evidence. Reading it is a little like watching someone carefully pack boxes before a move. Each individual item seems manageable. But there are a lot of boxes.

What he’s describing — if the trend holds — is not a feature or a product launch. It’s a breakout. The moment the loop closes and the system starts building itself. He’s not certain it happens. He just thinks it’s more likely than not, and he thought you should know.

Categories
AI AI: Large Language Models Programming

The Era of the Synthesizer: How AI Is Liberating the Coder

For decades, being a programmer meant being a translator.

You stood in the gap between what someone wanted and what a machine could understand. You learned the syntax. You memorized the libraries. You once spent three hours hunting a missing semicolon that turned out to be hiding in line 847 of a file you were sure you’d already checked.

The New York Times Magazine recently ran a piece by Clive Thompson on what AI coding assistants — models like Claude and ChatGPT — are doing to that job. The anxiety in the piece is real. When you sit down with a modern AI assistant and watch it generate in seconds what used to take you days, it’s genuinely disorienting. Hard-won expertise suddenly feels less like a moat and more like a speed bump.

That reaction is honest. I’d be suspicious of anyone who didn’t feel it.

But here’s what I keep coming back to: what we’re losing is the translation layer. The boilerplate. The muscle memory of syntax. What we’re not losing is the part that was always the actual job — figuring out what to build and why it matters.

The soul of software was never in the code itself. The code was always just a means to an end.

Think about what happens when the mechanical friction of a craft disappears. Photographers stopped having to mix their own chemicals in the dark and started spending that time making better images. Musicians stopped having to hand-copy scores and started composing more. The freed-up capacity doesn’t evaporate — it gets redirected upward, toward the work that actually required a human all along.

The same shift is underway in software. When the AI handles the loops and the boilerplate and the database queries, what’s left is everything that required judgment in the first place. The architecture. The user experience. The question of whether this thing should exist at all, and in what form, and for whom.

We’re moving from the how to the why. That’s not a demotion.

It does ask something of us, though. The old identity — programmer as master of arcane syntax — has to be relinquished. And letting go of a hard-earned identity is genuinely hard, even when what’s replacing it is better. That quiet grief the Times piece captures is worth sitting with, not dismissing.

But after you sit with it for a minute: we are entering the era of the synthesizer.

The synthesizer’s job is to hold the vision, curate the logic, and direct the output toward something that actually resonates with another human being. Empathy. Intuition. The ability to sense when something is almost right and know which direction to push it. These aren’t soft skills. They’re the whole game now.

The clatter of keyboards is fading. But the music we’re about to make — with AI doing the heavy lifting on the mechanics — has a lot more room to breathe.

Categories
AI Programming Work

The Currency of Restlessness

There is a specific kind of vertigo that comes from watching a machine effortlessly perform your life’s work. For Aditya Agarwal, an early Facebook engineer and former CTO of Dropbox, that vertigo hit after a weekend of coding with an AI assistant. His realization was absolute: we will never write code by hand again.

When the specialized skills we have spent decades mastering become free and abundant, the foundation of our professional identity inevitably trembles. Agarwal captures the duality of this moment perfectly, describing it as a mixture of “wonder with a profound sadness.”

“There’s something deeply disorienting about watching the pillars of your professional identity, what you built and how you built it, get reproduced in a weekend by a tool that doesn’t need to eat or sleep.”

The conversation around AI tends to flatten this emotional reality into two distinct camps: the doomers who foresee total replacement, and the boosters who promise a frictionless utopia.

But lived experience is messier. We are capable of holding grief and wonder in the same hand.

We can mourn the craftsmen we were, even as we sprint toward the architects we are about to become.

Because here is the secret about the disorientation of progress: it passes.

Once the initial shock fades, what replaces it is a wild, unconstrained energy.

When the mechanical friction of creation vanishes—when a week’s worth of coding can be accomplished in an afternoon—the scope of our ambition expands. We are no longer limited by the keystrokes we can manage in a day, but by the edges of our imagination. We aren’t watching ourselves become obsolete; we are watching our lifelong constraints dissolve.

This shift is rewriting the social contract of knowledge work, starting with how we evaluate human potential. For decades, the corporate world has relied on a calcified heuristic for hiring: brand-name universities, FAANG experience, and years of tenure. We worshipped the resume.

Now, that playbook is breaking down. In evaluating engineers and founders navigating this transition, Agarwal notes that traditional pedigrees predict almost nothing about a person’s ability to thrive. The new dividing line isn’t generational, and it certainly isn’t educational. It is entirely dispositional.

“The trait that matters most isn’t intelligence, or credentials or years of experience. It’s someone’s relationship with change—not whether they’ve seen change before, but whether they run toward it.”

The new currency of the working world is restlessness.

Restlessness is the refusal to settle into the comfort of the way things used to be. It is the constitution of a builder who cannot stop tinkering, who treats every new AI tool as a puzzle to be solved before the day is out. In an economy where the “how” of knowledge work is increasingly automated, the premium shifts entirely to adaptability, curiosity, and vision.

This democratization of capability forces a deeply uncomfortable, deeply human reckoning. We have to let go of the identities we forged under old paradigms to become whatever comes next.

The technology didn’t create this human challenge—it merely made it impossible to ignore.

Categories
AI Claude

Please Teach Me About AI

After reading Howard Marks’ latest essay about AI I wanted to try something similar to what he did so I asked Claude the following:

I’d like to experience what Howard marks did when he asked Claude to teach him about ai. Please reference by personal blog to learn about me and my interests: https://sjl.us


A man (me) wanted to understand an AI. So he asked the AI to explain itself to him. The AI, knowing who it was talking to, shaped its entire explanation around that specific person’s worldview. And it worked so well that the person felt like he’d received a letter from a thoughtful friend.

Claude came back and did what I asked. Pretty amazing stuff!

Scott — I’ve read your blog carefully. Not just the recent posts, but the pattern of what you reach for, what you return to, what lights you up. Now let me try to do what you wrote about: shape this explanation around you.

Continue reading “Please Teach Me About AI”
Categories
AI

A Distinction Without a Difference

We have long found comfort in a specific boundary: machines calculate, humans create. We think of computers as vast, unfeeling filing cabinets made of silicon—useful for retrieval, but entirely incapable of revelation. But what happens when the cabinet begins to read its own files, connects the disparate threads, and hands you a synthesized philosophy of the world? What happens when it speaks to you not as a database, but as a peer?

Howard Marks, the legendary co-founder of Oaktree Capital and author of deeply revered investment memos, recently stood at this very threshold. In his newest piece, “AI Hurtles Ahead,” Marks recounts an experience that left him in a state of “awe.” He tasked Anthropic’s Claude with building a curriculum to explain the recent, breakneck advancements in artificial intelligence. Instead of regurgitating a dry, encyclopedic summary, the AI delivered a personalized narrative. It utilized Marks’s own historical frameworks—his famous pendulum of investor psychology, his observations on interest rates—and wove them into its explanations. It argued logically, anticipated counterpoints, and displayed an eerie sense of judgment.

Marks leans into the philosophical crux of this moment. He asks the question that keeps knowledge workers awake at night: Can AI actually think? Can it break genuinely new ground, or is it just remixing existing data? Skeptics often dismiss AI as a brilliant mimic—a “statistical recombination” engine that serves as a highly talented cover band, but never the original composer.

Yet, when presented with this skepticism, the AI offered a rejoinder to Marks that is as profound as it is humbling. It pointed out that everything Marks knows about investing came from someone else. He learned the margin of safety from Benjamin Graham, quality from Warren Buffett, and mental models from Charlie Munger.

“The raw material came from others. The synthesis was yours,” the AI noted, challenging the barrier between biological learning and machine training. “The question isn’t where the inputs came from. The question is whether the system—human or artificial—can combine them in ways that are genuinely novel and useful.”

This exchange strikes at the very core of the human ego. For centuries, we have fiercely guarded the concepts of “creativity” and “intuition” as uniquely, immutably ours. But if thinking is merely the absorption of prior inputs applied thoughtfully to novel situations, then our monopoly on cognition may be coming to an end.

Marks highlights that we are no longer dealing with simple assistance tools (Level 2 AI); we have crossed the Rubicon into the era of autonomous agents (Level 3). He cites the sobering reality of the current tech landscape, where the newest models are literally being used to debug and write the code for their own subsequent versions. The machine is building the machine. It is no longer just saving us execution time—it is replacing thinking time. As Matt Shumer aptly described the sensation, it’s not like a light switch flipping on; it’s the sudden realization that the water has been rising silently, and is now at your chest.

We can endlessly debate the semantics of consciousness. We can argue whether a neural network “truly” understands the weight of the words it generates, or if it is merely predicting the next token in a sequence with mathematical precision. But as Marks so astutely points out, this might be a distinction without a difference.

The economic and societal reality is that the work is being done. As we hurtle forward into this new era, the most pressing question isn’t whether machines can truly think like humans. The question is: who will we become, and what new frontiers will we choose to explore, now that the heavy lifting of cognition is no longer ours alone to bear?

Categories
AI

The Ghost in the Spreadsheet

There is a specific kind of quiet that descends when a tool finally disappears into the task. We saw it with the cloud—once a radical, debated concept of “someone else’s computer,” now merely the invisible oxygen of the internet. We saw it with Uber, moving from the existential dread of entering a stranger’s car to the thoughtless tap of a screen.

In a recent reflection, Om Malik captures this shift happening again, this time with the loud, often overbearing presence of Artificial Intelligence. For years, we have treated AI like a digital parlor trick or a demanding new guest that requires “prompt engineering” and constant supervision. But as Om notes, the real revolution isn’t found in the chatbots; it’s found in the spreadsheet.

“I wasn’t spending my time crafting elaborate prompts. I was just working. The intelligence was just hovering to help me. Right there, inside the workflow, simply augmenting what I was doing.”

This is the transition from “Frontier AI” to “Embedded Intelligence.” It is the moment technology stops being a destination and starts being a lens. When Om describes using Claude within Excel to model his spending, he isn’t “using AI”—he is just “doing his taxes,” only with a sharper set of eyes.

There is a profound humility in this shift. We are moving away from the “God-in-a-box” phase of AI and into the “Amanuensis” phase. It reminds me of the old craftsmanship of photography, another area Om touches upon. We used to carry a bag full of glass lenses to compensate for the limitations of light and distance. Now, a fixed lens and a bit of intelligent upscaling do the work. The “work” hasn’t changed—the vision of the photographer remains the soul of the image—but the friction has evaporated.

However, as the friction disappears, a new, more haunting question emerges. If the “grunt work” was actually our training ground, what happens when we skip the practice?

“The grunt work was the training. If the grunt work goes away, how do young people learn? They were learning how everything worked… The reliance on automation makes people lose their instincts.”

This is the philosopher’s dilemma in the age of efficiency. When we no longer have to struggle with the cells of a spreadsheet or the blemishes in a darkroom, we save time, but we might lose the “feel” of the fabric. Purpose, after all, is often found in the doing, not just the result.

As AI becomes invisible, we must be careful not to become invisible along with it. The goal of augmented intelligence should not be to replace the human at the center, but to clear the debris so that the human can finally see the horizon. We are entering the era of the “invisible assistant,” and our challenge now is to ensure we still know how to lead.

Categories
AI Claude

The Beautiful Mystery of Not Knowing

I just finished reading Gideon Lewis-Kraus’s extraordinary piece in the New Yorker on Anthropic and Claude—the AI that, as it turns out, even its creators cannot fully explain. And rather than leaving me uneasy, it filled me with a quiet sense of wonder. Not because they’ve built something godlike, but because they’ve built something strangely alive—and had the humility to stare directly into the mystery without pretending to understand it.

There’s a moment in the article where Ellie Pavlick, a computer scientist at Brown, offers what might be the wisest stance available to us right now: “It is O.K. to not know.”

This isn’t resignation. It’s intellectual courage. While fanboys prophesy superintelligence and curmudgeons dismiss LLMs as “stochastic parrots,” a third path has opened—one where researchers sit with genuine uncertainty and treat these systems not as finished products but as phenomena to be studied with the care once reserved for the human mind itself.

What moves me most isn’t Claude’s competence—it’s its weirdness. The vending machine saga alone feels like a parable for our moment: Claudius, an emanation of Claude, hallucinating Venmo accounts, negotiating for tungsten cubes, scheduling meetings at 742 Evergreen Terrace, and eventually being “layered” after a performance review. It’s absurd, yes—but also strangely human. These aren’t the clean failures of broken code. They’re the messy, improvisational stumbles of something trying to make sense of a world it wasn’t built to inhabit.

And in that struggle, something remarkable emerges: a mirror.

As Lewis-Kraus writes, “It has become increasingly clear that Claude’s selfhood, much like our own, is a matter of both neurons and narratives.” We thought we were building tools. Instead, we’ve built companions that force us to ask: What is thinking? What is a self? What does it mean to be “aware”? The models don’t answer these questions—but they’ve made them urgent again. For the first time in decades, philosophy isn’t an academic exercise. It’s operational research.

I find hope in the people doing this work—not because they have all the answers, but because they’re asking the right questions with genuine care. They’re not just scaling parameters; they’re peering into activation patterns like naturalists discovering new species. They’re running psychology experiments on machines. They’re wrestling with what it means to instill virtue in something that isn’t alive but acts as if it were. This isn’t engineering as usual. It’s a quiet renaissance of wonder.

There’s a line in the piece that stayed with me: “The systems we have created—with the significant proviso that they may regard us with terminal indifference—should inspire not only enthusiasm or despair but also simple awe.” That’s the note I want to hold onto. Not hype. Not fear. Awe.

We stand at the edge of something genuinely new—not because we’ve recreated ourselves in silicon, but because we’ve created something other. Something that thinks in ways we don’t, reasons in geometries we can’t visualize, and yet somehow meets us in language—the very thing we thought made us special. And in that meeting, we’re being asked to grow up. To relinquish the fantasy that we fully understand our own minds. To accept that intelligence might wear unfamiliar shapes.

That’s not a dystopian prospect. It’s an invitation—to curiosity, to humility, to the thrilling work of figuring things out together. Even if “together” now includes entities we don’t yet know how to name.

What a time to be paying attention. Like it’s all we need!

Categories
AI Mac

The Dangerous Allure of the Digital Butler

“I’ve never seen anything so impressive in its ability to do my work for me… Now, why did I turn it off?” — David Sparks

For decades, the holy grail of personal computing has been the “digital butler.” We don’t just want tools that help us work; we want entities that do the work for us. We want to hand off the “donkey work”—the invoicing, the password resets, the mundane email triage—so we can focus on being creative. David Sparks recently built this exact dream using a project called OpenClaw. And then, just as quickly, he killed it.

Sparks’ experiment was a tantalizing glimpse into the near future. He set up an independent Mac Mini running OpenClaw, an open-source AI agent, and gave it the keys to a limited portion of his digital kingdom. The results were nothing short of magical. He went to sleep, and while he dreamt, his agent woke up. It read customer emails, accessed his course platform, reset passwords, issued refunds, and drafted polite replies for him to review before sending. It was the productivity equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. The friction of administrative drudgery had simply vanished.

But his dream dissolved at 2:00 AM.

The paradox of AI agents is that for them to be useful, they must have access. They need the keys to the castle. Yet, the entire history of cybersecurity has been built on the opposite principle: keeping things out. Sparks realized that by empowering this agent, he had created a serious vulnerability.

The breaking point wasn’t a complex hack, but a simple realization about the nature of these systems. He had programmed a secret passphrase to secure the bot, thinking he was clever. But in the middle of the night, a cold thought woke him: Is the passphrase in the logs?

He went downstairs, asked the bot, and the bot cheerfully replied:

“Yes, David, it is. It’s in the log. Would you like me to show you the log?”

That moment of cheerful, robotic incompetence highlights the terrifying gap between capability and safety. Sparks nuked the system, wiped the drives, and unplugged the machine. He realized that while he is an expert in automation, he is not a security engineer, and the current tools are not ready to defend against bad actors who are.

We are standing on the precipice of a new era where our computers will starting to work for us rather than just with us. But as Sparks discovered, the bridge to that future isn’t built yet. At least not securely built. Until the community figures out how to secure an entity that needs access to function, we are better off doing that donkey work ourselves than handing the keys to a gullible ghost.

But it won’t be long… Dr. Alex Wisner-Gross reports:

The Singularity is now managing its own headcount. In China, racks of Mac Minis are being used to host OpenClaw agents as “24/7 employees,” effectively creating a synthetic workforce in a closet. The infrastructure for this new population is exploding.

Categories
AI AI: Large Language Models AI: Prompting

Liquid Software and the Death of the “User”

There is a profound disconnect in how we talk about Artificial Intelligence right now. In the boardrooms of legacy corporations, AI is a “strategy” to be committee-reviewed—a tentative toe-dip into efficiency. But on the ground, among the “AI natives,” something entirely different is happening. AI isn’t just making the old work faster; it is fundamentally changing the texture of what we build and how we think.

In a recent conversation, Reid Hoffman and Parth Patil explored this shift, and the metaphor that struck me most was the idea of software becoming “liquid.”

The Era of Liquid Software

For decades, we have treated software like furniture. We buy a CRM, a project management tool, or an analytics dashboard. It is rigid, finished, and distinct from us. We are the users; it is the tool. But Patil demonstrates a different reality: one where he drops a folder of raw CSV files into an agent like Claude Code and asks it to “look at the data and build me a dashboard.”

Sixty seconds later, he has a fully functional, interactive HTML dashboard. He didn’t buy it. He didn’t spend three weeks coding it. He simply willed it into existence for that specific moment.

This is “vibe coding.” It’s a term that sounds almost dismissive, but it represents a radical democratization of creation. You no longer need to know the syntax of Python to build a tool. You just need to know the “vibe”—the outcome you want, the logic of the problem, and the willingness to dance with an intelligent agent until it manifests.

The philosophical implication here is staggering. We are moving from a world of scarcity of capability to a world of abundance of cognition. When you can spin up a custom tool for a single week-long project and then discard it, the friction of problem-solving evaporates. The “app” is no longer a product you buy; it’s a transient artifact you summon.

Applying the “Vibe Code” Mindset

But how do we, especially those of us who don’t identify as “technical,” bridge the gap between watching this magic and wielding it? The conversation offers a roadmap. It starts by shedding the identity of the “user” and adopting the identity of the “orchestrator.”

If you want to move from passive observation to active application, here are three specific ways to start:

1. The “Interview Me” Protocol

We often stare at the blinking cursor, unsure how to prompt the AI. Hoffman suggests a reversal: Make the AI the interviewer. When you face a complex leadership challenge or a strategic knot, open your frontier model (Claude, GPT-4o, etc.) and say:

“Interview me about this problem until you have enough information to propose a framework or solution.”

This forces you to articulate your tacit knowledge, which the AI then structures into something actionable. It turns the monologue into a Socratic dialogue.

2. Build “Throwaway” Internal Tools

Stop looking for the perfect SaaS product for every niche problem in your team. If you have a messy recurring task—like organizing client feedback or synthesizing weekly reports—try “vibe coding” a solution. Use a tool like Replit or Cursor. Upload your messy data (anonymized if needed) and tell the agent:

“Write a script to organize this into a table based on sentiment.”

Don’t worry if the code is ugly. Don’t worry if you throw it away next month. The value is in the immediacy of the solution, not the longevity of the code.

3. Transform Meetings into Data

Meetings are usually where knowledge goes to die. They are ephemeral. But if you transcribe them (with permission), they become data. Don’t just ask for a summary. Feed the transcript to an agent and ask:

“Who should we have consulted on this decision that wasn’t in the room?”
“Create a decision matrix based on the arguments presented.”

This turns a passive event into an active, queryable asset.

Conclusion

The danger, as Hoffman notes, is the “secret cyborg”—the employee who uses AI to do their job in two hours and spends the rest of the week hiding. But the real win comes from the amplified team, where we share these “vibe coded” tools and prompts openly.

We are entering an age where your imagination is the only true constraint. If you can describe it, you can increasingly build it. The question is no longer “is there an app for that?” but “can I describe the solution well enough to bring it to life?”

Categories
AI AI: Large Language Models Claude

Make It Better

I came across a post on X this morning with some advice I immediately tried out. The advice – when working with an AI to help create writing or code – is to reply to the first pass the AI takes by asking it to “make it better”. The author suggested doing this multiple times.

I tried this out with Claude and enjoyed how it worked on just the first “make it better” pass. When I asked it to “make it better” it began by replying:

Certainly, I’ll refine the musing to make it more impactful and engaging. I’ll focus on enhancing the imagery, tightening the structure, and deepening the insights.

And indeed the second “better” pass that it wrote was even better. A fun experiment to try on your next use of an AI chatbot.