I think part of it is the feeling of false understanding that comes from using llms regularly. They let you operate at a higher conceptual level, and they paper over enough of the actual details that your conceptual model might not actually be correct.

I'm a mechanical engineer by training, and have similar vibes with the similarities I see between llm training and metallurgy. I could probably put together a formal concept for these vibes at this point, but is there actually a "there" there? I have no idea. And it would take me years to actually dive in and learn everything to gain the deep understanding that would be required to know if I'm just experiencing my own brand of AI psychosis or not.

It's a brave new world, that's for sure.

> that will instantly 10x or 100x current capabilities.

In the 1920s we had legions of very smart, highly trained (arguably better trained in mathematics) basically chucking relays and vacuum tubes together with reckless abandon to build the most valuable and complicated systems mankind had ever come up with (telephony, radio, radar, etc). They had no idea how they worked and only ad-hoc rules of thumb to construct them.

It took the insight of a handful of these people both in and outside of industry to formalize the theory of operation of most of what people were already building and then use that theory to establish formal design practices.

The people before these theories were realized were exceptionally smart and good at what they did, it's just they didn't have better design tools to reason about the things they were building.

And once they had those tools they didn't 10x or 100x overnight.

no. we're approach a sigmoid. AI is bloated carcass and we're tweaking out the size of the models and speed they'll run on smaller hardware.

I think to feel what you're feeling, you've bought into "all we need is more context". I think evolution demonstrates that's not really true.