I'm Not Convinced the AI Bubble Exists

Re:I'm Not Convinced the AI Bubble Exists by Aeolos on Monday November 09, 2026 @03:00AM (#50422506)

Yes, without a question. Fable 5 and Opus 5.5 are a step-change above what we had before. On the open-weights side, GLM 5.3, DeepSeek 4.1 v1017, Qwen3.8-Flash-Next are all significantly more capable in basically any task you can give them.

You can now have a model work on a task non-stop for a day or more. This was unthinkable 12 months ago, and unstable 6 months ago.

If you are searching for evidence of capability, just look at the amount of projects, blog posts and videos on game remixes, hardware reverse engineering, new compilers and runtimes that has started coming out in the last 6 months. Slop? Sure, but this kind of slop didn't exist at this level 6 or 12 months ago.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I'm Not Convinced the AI Bubble Exists by grey-area on Monday November 09, 2026 @03:39AM (#50422790)

And yet we have to contrast that with reports like this of model capability falling:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50422069

It's really very hard to pin down progress in this domain, companies are definitely targetting benchmarks.

One bit of evidence I would look at is the maths results this last year which have been impressive, that was a huge expensive brute force effort, but it is still good progress.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I'm Not Convinced the AI Bubble Exists by pixelstack on Monday November 09, 2026 @04:04AM (#50423000)

i am wondering in what potential world would average user or even business user require for model to work on a task for more than a couple of hours? Is assumption that models on average are used to build nextt SpaceX or something?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I'm Not Convinced the AI Bubble Exists by yladiz on Monday November 09, 2026 @05:18AM (#50423624)

Are you certain this is a model improvement and not improvements to agents?

[ Parent | on HN ]