AI codegen isn't comparable to a highly-infectious disease: it's been a lot more than a few weeks. I don't think your analogy is apt: it reads more like rhetoric to me. (Unless I've missed the point entirely.)

▲

anorwell a day ago | parent [-]

https://metr.org/blog/2025-03-19-measuring-ai-ability-to-com...

From my perspective, it's not the worst analogy. In both cases, some people were forecasting an exponential trend into the future and sounding an alarm, while most people seemed to be discounting the exponential effect. Covid's doubling time was ~3 days, whereas the AI capabilities doubling time seems to be about 7 months.

I think disagreement in threads like this often can trace back to a miscommunication about the state today / historically versus. Skeptics are usually saying: capabilities are not good _today_ (or worse: capabilities were not good six months ago when I last tested it. See: this OP which is pre-Opus 4.5). Capabilities forecasters are saying: given the trend, what will things be like in 2026-2027?

	▲	wizzwizz4 a day ago \| parent [-]
		The "COVID-19's doubling time was ≈3 days" figure was the output of an epidemiological model, based on solid and empirically-validated theory, based on hundreds of years of observations of diseases. "AI capabilities' doubling time seems to be about 7 months" is based on meaningless benchmarks, corporate marketing copy, and subjective reports contradicted by observational evidence of the same events. There's no compelling reason to believe that any of this is real, and plenty of reason to believe it's largely fraudulent. (Models from 2, 3, 4 years ago based on the "it's fraud" concept are still showing high predictive power today, whereas the models of the "capabilities forecasters" have been repeatedly adjusted.)