fronx 🐙✨

1 million context window: Now generally available for Claude Opus 4.6 and Claude Sonnet 4.6.

AI is changing the viscosity of the human agent network. The barrier for mutual commitment is higher, as is the noise floor of fleeting connections. In other words, the dough is becoming lumpy. This has consequences for employment and independence. The bar is higher for what it means to truly be part of something bigger. Either you stick, you're relied on, depended on. Or you're dispensable. And if you're a free agent, the only way to stick is to be known for something your network is able to model. Expertise isn't enough. They need to see consistency or else they'll see nothing at all. You become a blurry spot in a noisy picture. The value of commitment has gone up. Stick to what matters to you or become a particle in a wind storm.

It's interesting that we seek evidence of whether something is AGI in terms of whether a single model ("it") can do something like discover general relativity. But such discoveries are population-level feats, even if an Einstein is the final generator. The reason we could get one person in 1915 who could do that is that there were almost 2 billion diverse variations on the human mind at the time to choose from. To invest astronomical compute into a *single* model AI that could reliably do what Einstein did given knowledge up to 1911 is a vastly different problem than training 2 billion diverse models and finding the one (or it finding itself) with the right problem alignment. Humanity offers no precedent for cooking up a single model that can do anything the very best human can do in any field, though the subtlety of the distinction is easily overlooked.

Focus ona a sub-graph and read the content