PPCC: Pisitófilos Creditófagos. Invierno 2025

[pianista]

Las drogas o la corrupción política no son legales pero están permitidas.
El pisito es legal y su estafa es lo que ha votado la mayoría natural en cada una de las elecciones que ha habido. Al menos eso decía ppcc , que la política nacional autonómica local estaba diseñada para contentar a la mayoría natural pisitofilacreditofaga,,, por lo tanto, democrática.
Los capitalistitas se creen capitalistas y democratitas porque están protegidos y amparados por ambas fuerzas

[breades]

Tan legal y democrático como prohibir a los negros sentarse en el autobús hace 60 años.
En este punto solo el Capital puede organizar algo ya contra esta estafa, y lo hará para socavar (aún mas) el poder de un Estado, a todas luces inoperante... por democrático.
Que Dios nos coja confesados, porque vamos a caer en manos del mercado,
Los primeros en disfrutarlo, los que tengan sus ahorros en ladrillo.
La vida del proletario sin esperanza de sublimación debe ser jodida.

No me seas asustaviejas, que mira que te gusta.

El Capital sin Estado no puede prosperar. Es una de las grandes lecciones de la historia contemporanea. Realmente, quienes están hoy más seducidos por una idea de Estado mínimo tipo minarquista son los pisitófilos creditófagos, y aquí ya sabemos que son los próximos en caer.

Estados hay de muchos tipos (cada uno con sus ventajas, sus inconvenientes y sus formas de gobierno). Podemos plantarnos en una dictadura capitalista de fuerte planificación central como China, o en un liberalismo salvaje como EEUU. No se necesita una democracia para prosperar. De hecho estamos viendo en lo que se convierte la democracia cuando se pervierte, y es descorazonador.

No.

Estado sólo hay uno, pero hay muchos Gobiernos.

Otra prueba irrefutable de que no hay democracia es que los Gobiernos moldean el Estado a su imagen y semejanza. La oposición institucional que se encuentren será lo que te indique si hubo un corpus social capaz de establecer límites y contrapesos a la tiranía. La oposición de la calle mola mucho (sólo a veces) pero sirve de nada.

Por lo demás, una oclocracia como la nuestra (que no democracia) ha sido hiperútil para prosperar, pero a la inversa, sease: prohperah. No soy historiador ni economista, pero me atrevo a decir que nunca en la historia se ha dado un proceso de concentración de recursos en tan pocas manos como se ha dado durante el popularcapitalismo.

Es que somos imbéciles, emberdá.

Aunque el Capital sigue necesitando estabilidad (de Estado) para reproducrise. Es un hecho constatado por la historia.

[Derby]

https://unherd.com/2026/02/rubios-charm-conceals-a-brutal-truth/

Rubio’s charm conceals a brutal truth Europe is on  its own Wolfgang Munchau


‘Europeans hated Vance’s speech. Yet they loved Rubio’s.’ (Liesa Johannssen/ POOL/AFP/Getty)

What a difference a year makes. At this weekend’s Munich Security Conference, Secretary of State Marco Rubio was given a standing ovation for a speech that echoed what Vice President JD Vance had said so scandalously 12 months earlier. Rubio accused Europeans of trying “to appease a climate cult” that has impoverished the continent by forcing it to adopt catastrophic energy policies. Like Vance, he also criticised Europe’s immigration policies and its dogmatic commitment to global free trade, which he said has fuelled deindustrialisation and hollowed out supply chains. He even lamented the transfer of sovereignty to international organisations — a swipe not just at the UN and international legal bodies, but at the EU itself.

Europeans hated Vance’s speech. Yet they loved Rubio’s. The difference was tone. Unlike Vance, Rubio sugar-coated the message. “For us Americans,” he said, “home may be in the Western Hemisphere, but we will always be a child of Europe.” Europeans just love it when Americans show respect for their cultural heritage. It flatters their sense of pride — and superiority.

Europe is deluded, though. And when European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen popped up to say she felt very much reassured, it reminded me of that old quip about diplomacy, often, probably wrongly, attributed to Winston Churchill: “Diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they ask for directions.”

In the 12 months between those two Munich speeches, the transatlantic relationship has changed beyond recognition. As Matthew Whitaker, US ambassador to Nato, put it so bluntly last week, “We want Europe to take over the conventional defence of the European continent.” The US may remain part of the Nato infrastructure. But the truth is that today we are home alone in Nato. Our old security guards are watching over someone else’s house.

Instead of accepting this new reality, Europe is convinced there will be a return to the status quo ante: President Donald Trump is deemed an aberration; once he is gone, transatlantic relations will return to normal. Only half of this is true. Trump is no doubt an aberration. And he will be gone in three years. But his security doctrine will endure.

For even though Trump, with his tweets and tariffs, can be unpredictable, Washington’s security policy is remarkably consistent. We know from the White House’s National Security Strategy that the Western Hemisphere — the Americas — is the priority. Asia comes second. Europe third. The US has no interest in getting out of Nato. The alliance still serves an important purpose for Washington — albeit a different one from Europe.

The US disengagement from European security is part of a broader game plan as it prepares for a worst-case scenario: a Chinese attack on Taiwan, coupled with a simultaneous Russian attack on western Europe and a North Korean attack on South Korea. If you think strategically about such a war scenario, it is clear that the US cannot simultaneously fight a war in east Asia and in Europe. Burden-sharing in the Nato alliance would require the Europeans to look after their own turf.

As a result, Washington is locking in material changes that will be difficult to reverse. For one thing, Europeans are receiving a higher allocation of jobs in Nato’s command structure, and all three regional commands will be led by Europeans. Germany and Poland will share command of Joint Force Command Brunssum — responsible for central and eastern Europe — on a rotational basis.

It has, in any case, been the policy of successive US administrations, both Republican and Democrat, to push Europeans — or “free-riders” as Obama termed it — into shouldering a greater defence burden. But these efforts were repeatedly frustrated by Europe’s dishonest commitments on defence spending targets. That lamentable state of affairs ended under Joe Biden when Russia invaded Ukraine. Europeans would be naive to think that even a pro-European Democrat in the White House would want to reverse this.

Nor should the Europeans have their heads turned by those Democrats at the Munich conference, notably Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Gavin Newsom, who encouraged them to stand up to Trump. I think this is bad advice. They are abusing the international stage for domestic politics. Most US governors and lawmakers are unaccustomed to thinking in terms of foreign policy strategy until the moment they meet their security advisers and chiefs of staff in the White House Situation Room for the first time.

But as they move through the stages of grief over the death of the transatlantic relationship, the Europeans are struggling. They are not yet ready to accept this new world. Just look at the mess they created over Ukraine. Richard Shirreff, who served as Nato’s Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, has castigated Europe and Canada for failing to develop and implement a strategy to support Ukraine. He wants the Europeans to distance themselves from the US, and organise their own defence, the very opposite of Mark Rutte’s “Trump whisperer” approach. Rutte later defended his attitude to “daddy”, telling the European Parliament: “If anyone thinks here … that the European Union or Europe as a whole can defend itself without the US, keep on dreaming.” While this is indeed a fair description of the status quo, I also think that Rutte’s desperate attempt to keep the US in its current role as Europe’s lord protector is a disaster.

“As they move through the stages of grief over the death of the transatlantic relationship, the Europeans are struggling.”

I am not going to rule out the possibility that the Europeans will eventually measure up to the challenge and take responsibility for their own security. But right now that looks unlikely. The main issue is not defence spending, but how we organise our mutual defence. And that is hopelessly inefficient. Each European country has its own command structure. Everybody has their own procurement policy. Many have their own weapons systems. The European Nato countries have 10 different battle tanks in operation; the US has one. The Europeans have different fighter aircraft, air defence systems, and howitzers.

The consequences of such fragmentation are costly. According to analysis by Bain, the average cost of 155mm ammunition is around $4,000, whereas the Russians pay $1,000 for 152mm shells. The figures are not strictly comparable, but they do indicate the scale of Europe’s disadvantage. To match Russia’s defence spending, we would have to spend four times as much as they do. Similar numbers also apply to other categories of defence spending. Simply increasing budgets without centralising procurement would be a waste of money.

The Europeans have started to increase their defence spending. But they are not willing to abandon their cherished sovereignty in favour of a common procurement policy, let alone a common command structure. Without that, I cannot see how Europe’s efforts to become self-reliant can conceivably succeed. Some of the largest European countries, like France, have no fiscal capacity left. Consolidation and pooling of procurement is the only low-hanging fruit. If your enemy has a one-to-four cost advantage over you, you will lose. Even if we turned ourselves into a war economy, we would struggle to buy what they can buy.

Right now, France and Germany care more about their own domestic defence industries and reject the pooling of defence procurement. The only scenario where I can see this changing is one in which such a decision were forced upon them through a war: it’s hardly one we should wish for.

This is why the situation is so bloody dangerous. We have exited one dysfunctional security framework, but we have yet to enter a new one. We are stuck between two worlds. Anything could happen.

Economists like to describe such scenarios — which concern three desirable but incompatible goals — using the metaphor of impossible triangles. Here is one for defence: a reduced American contribution to Europe’s conventional defence; a European reluctance to pool defence procurement and weapons systems; and a high degree of security. The first of these three — the US withdrawal from Europe’s defence — has become a reality. Europe must now reconcile the remaining two.

The Americans have just sent the Europeans to hell. And the Europeans are asking for directions.

[Derby]

piso que no pensaba vender sino poner en alquiler -a precio estratosférico-, y no vender nunca, ya que -palabras textuales-, un piso en esa zona es un cheque al portador, y solo puede subir.

La gente está muy desinformada...lo veo a diario. La renta de ese piso está topada por el índice de precios de alquiler o por el último contrato de alquiler vigente en los últimos cinco años. Y sí, muchos compran primero el piso y luego se informan de la rentabilidad. Más adelante vienen los lloros por la obligación del propietario de conservación del piso.

Edito para añadir que la Agència de l'Habitatge ya está resolviendo expedientes sancionadores por incumplimiento de la normativa de contención de rentas e imponiendo multas de a partir de 3.000€. Han dictado una nueva circular con criterios interpretativos y se mantienen firmes en una interpretación estricta de la normativa. Por ejemplo, en el caso de alquiler de temporada para finalidad vacacional (único caso que elude la contención de rentas) habrá que aportar junto al contrato, al depositar la fianza en Incasol (organismo oficial para el depósito de fianzas), un certificado de empadronamiento del inquilino en su domicilio habitual; para acreditar que el inquilino tiene un domicilio habitual que no es la vivienda arrendada con carácter temporal.

[senslev]

https://www.reuters.com/business/canadian-housing-starts-drop-15-january-2026-02-16/

TORONTO, Feb 16 (Reuters) - Canadian housing starts fell more than expected in January, dropping 15% from the previous month, data from the national housing agency showed on Monday.
The seasonally adjusted annualized rate of housing starts declined to 238,049 units from a revised 280,668 units in December, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) said. Economists had expected starts to fall to 257,500.

[senslev]

https://x.com/AleJacintoUrang/status/2023335000750584126?s=20

Alejandra Jacinto
@AleJacintoUrang

¿Quién hay detrás del anuncio de “ particular: compro piso” que aparece cada mañana en el parabrisas de tu coche?

[marvin]

Comparto caso real y actual, sociedad entra en causa de disolución. En la liquidación vende su activo inmobiliario, valor contable 28 millones, precio de venta 14 millones. La diferencia se la come el acreedor, no el capital🤦, en fin...
Pero un -50%!!

Ánimo!

[cujo]

Como decía mi madre , no tenemos el suficiente dinero para poder ser de izquierdas

[Derby]

https://www.axios.com/2026/02/16/anthropic-defense-department-relationship-hegseth

Exclusive: Pentagon threatens Anthropic punishment


Defense Secretary Hegseth (left), CIA Director Ratcliffe and President Trump during the Maduro raid in January. Photo: Molly Riley/The White House via Getty Images

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is "close" to cutting business ties with Anthropic and designating the AI company a "supply chain risk" — meaning anyone who wants to do business with the U.S. military has to cut ties with the company, a senior Pentagon official told Axios.

*The senior official said:"It will be an enormous pain in the ass to disentangle, and we are going to make sure they pay a price for forcing our hand like this."

Why it matters: That kind of penalty is usually reserved for foreign adversaries.

Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell told Axios: "The Department of War's relationship with Anthropic is being reviewed. Our nation requires that our partners be willing to help our warfighters win in any fight. Ultimately, this is about our troops and the safety of the American people."

The big picture: Anthropic's Claude is the only AI model currently available in the military's classified systems, and is the world leader for many business applications. Pentagon officials heartily praise Claude's capabilities.

*As a sign of how embedded the software already is within the military, Claude was used during the Maduro raid in January, as Axios reported on Friday.

Breaking it down: Anthropic and the Pentagon have held months of contentious negotiations over the terms under which the military can use Claude.

*Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei takes these issues very seriously, but is a pragmatist.

*Anthropic is prepared to loosen its current terms of use, but wants to ensure its tools aren't used to spy on Americans en masse, or to develop weapons that fire with no human involvement.

The Pentagon claims that's unduly restrictive, and that there are all sorts of gray areas that would make it unworkable to operate on such terms. Pentagon officials are insisting in negotiations with Anthropic and three other big AI labs — OpenAI, Google and xAI — that the military be able to use their tools for "all lawful purposes."

*A source familiar with the dynamics said senior defense officials have been frustrated with Anthropic for some time, and embraced the opportunity to pick a public fight.

The other side: Existing mass surveillance law doesn't contemplate AI. The Pentagon can already collect troves of people's information, from social media posts to concealed carry permits, and there are privacy concerns AI can supercharge that authority to target civilians.

*An Anthropic spokesperson said: "We are having productive conversations, in good faith, with DoW on how to continue that work and get these new and complex issues right."

*The spokesperson reiterated the company's commitment to using frontier AI for national security, noting Claude was the first to be used on classified networks.

The stakes: Designating Anthropic a supply chain risk would require the plethora of companies that do business with the Pentagon to certify that they don't use Claude in their own workflows.

*Some of them almost certainly do, given the wide reach of Anthropic, which recently said eight of the 10 biggest U.S. companies use Claude.

*The contract the Pentagon is threatening to cancel is valued at up to $200 million, a small fraction of Anthropic's $14 billion in annual revenue.

Friction point: A senior administration official said that competing models "are just behind" when it comes to specialized government applications, complicating an abrupt switch.

The intrigue: The Pentagon's hardball with Anthropic sets the tone for its negotiations with OpenAI, Google and xAI, all of which have agreed to remove their safeguards for use in the military's unclassified systems, but are not yet used for more sensitive classified work.

*A senior administration official said the Pentagon is confident the other three will agree to the "all lawful use" standard. But a source familiar with those discussions said much is still undecided.

[Derby]

https://www.ft.com/content/b36ca89c-39d6-47b6-9f62-0389ec8dda9d

Federal Reserve set to loosen US bank rules in attempt to boost mortgage lending

Central bank plans to ease capital requirements in an effort to shift home lending back to banks, top official says


Federal Reserve’s Michelle Bowman said: ‘Strengthening bank participation in these activities does not threaten the safety and soundness of the banking system’ © AFP via Getty Images

The Federal Reserve is preparing to ease US bank capital requirements in a drive to encourage lenders to provide more mortgages for American homebuyers, according to the central bank’s head of regulation.

The move, which Fed vice-chair for supervision Michelle Bowman announced in a speech on Monday, comes after top officials in Donald Trump’s administration promised to remove restrictions they blame for pushing lending out of the banking system.

Bowman said the Fed planned two changes to its rules that would “increase bank incentives to engage in mortgage origination and servicing”. The reforms would “potentially reverse the trend of migration of mortgage activity to non-banks over the past 15 years”, she said.

The announcement is the clearest sign of how the central bank plans to loosen its earlier proposals for implementing the internationally agreed Basel capital rules to make them more friendly to Wall Street lenders.

Banks have lost a major portion of their share of the US mortgage market, which has fallen from 60 per cent of home loan origination in 2008 to 35 per cent in 2023, Bowman said.

A growing share of the originating and servicing of US mortgages is being conducted by specialist financial service companies, such as Rocket Mortgage and CrossCountry Mortgage.

Bowman blamed this shift on “over-calibration of the capital treatment for these activities, resulting in requirements that are both disproportionate to risk and that make mortgage activities too costly for banks to engage”.

Her comments echo concerns often expressed by US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent, who in October said he was “focused on ensuring that modernisation of our capital framework ends the capital arbitrage that drives bank lending to non-banks”.

Bessent said this process was likely to “entail reduced capital requirements for large banks on mortgage loans, investment-grade corporate loans and some other important exposures”. 

US banks sell many of the mortgages they originate to the government-sponsored agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But the banks continue to service many of these loans after their sale, earning a stream of fees and maintaining the relationship with the customer.

Bowman said the capital rules for mortgage servicing rights that banks hold on their balance sheets had been subjected to a “stringent capital treatment” under rules introduced in 2013.

She said the Fed would remove the requirement for banks to deduct these assets from their regulatory capital. It would also consult on whether to change their punitive treatment when banks assess their riskiness for capital purposes, in which they are given a 250 per cent risk weighting.

The Fed would also consider changing the requirement for banks to apply a standard capital calculation to mortgages regardless of their riskiness, she said. It may allow banks to vary the amount of capital they allocate to a mortgage depending on the size of the loan relative to the value of the property — something that is standard practice in many other countries.

Bowman said: “Strengthening bank participation in these activities does not threaten the safety and soundness of the banking system. These goals are consistent.”

[Terzaghi]

Buenas tardes,

tras muchos años sin escribir (pero leyéndoles a menudo) me he encontrado esto en
X: https://x.com/mattshumer_/status/2021256989876109403?s=20 de Matt Shumer:


Lo cito directamente aquí porque me parece interesante, especialmente la analogía con el inicio del CoViD (ojo, es largo así que lo pongo por partes):

"Think back to February 2020.

If you were paying close attention, you might have noticed a few people talking about a virus spreading overseas. But most of us weren't paying close attention. The stock market was doing great, your kids were in school, you were going to restaurants and shaking hands and planning trips. If someone told you they were stockpiling toilet paper you would have thought they'd been spending too much time on a weird corner of the internet. Then, over the course of about three weeks, the entire world changed. Your office closed, your kids came home, and life rearranged itself into something you wouldn't have believed if you'd described it to yourself a month earlier.

I think we're in the "this seems overblown" phase of something much, much bigger than Covid.

I've spent six years building an AI startup and investing in the space. I live in this world. And I'm writing this for the people in my life who don't... my family, my friends, the people I care about who keep asking me "so what's the deal with AI?" and getting an answer that doesn't do justice to what's actually happening. I keep giving them the polite version. The cocktail-party version. Because the honest version sounds like I've lost my mind. And for a while, I told myself that was a good enough reason to keep what's truly happening to myself. But the gap between what I've been saying and what is actually happening has gotten far too big. The people I care about deserve to hear what is coming, even if it sounds crazy.

I should be clear about something up front: even though I work in AI, I have almost no influence over what's about to happen, and neither does the vast majority of the industry. The future is being shaped by a remarkably small number of people: a few hundred researchers at a handful of companies... OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, and a few others. A single training run, managed by a small team over a few months, can produce an AI system that shifts the entire trajectory of the technology. Most of us who work in AI are building on top of foundations we didn't lay. We're watching this unfold the same as you... we just happen to be close enough to feel the ground shake first.

But it's time now. Not in an "eventually we should talk about this" way. In a "this is happening right now and I need you to understand it" way.

I know this is real because it happened to me first
Here's the thing nobody outside of tech quite understands yet: the reason so many people in the industry are sounding the alarm right now is because this already happened to us. We're not making predictions. We're telling you what already occurred in our own jobs, and warning you that you're next.

For years, AI had been improving steadily. Big jumps here and there, but each big jump was spaced out enough that you could absorb them as they came. Then in 2025, new techniques for building these models unlocked a much faster pace of progress. And then it got even faster. And then faster again. Each new model wasn't just better than the last... it was better by a wider margin, and the time between new model releases was shorter. I was using AI more and more, going back and forth with it less and less, watching it handle things I used to think required my expertise.

Then, on February 5th, two major AI labs released new models on the same day: GPT-5.3 Codex from OpenAI, and Opus 4.6 from Anthropic (the makers of Claude, one of the main competitors to ChatGPT). And something clicked. Not like a light switch... more like the moment you realize the water has been rising around you and is now at your chest.

I am no longer needed for the actual technical work of my job. I describe what I want built, in plain English, and it just... appears. Not a rough draft I need to fix. The finished thing. I tell the AI what I want, walk away from my computer for four hours, and come back to find the work done. Done well, done better than I would have done it myself, with no corrections needed. A couple of months ago, I was going back and forth with the AI, guiding it, making edits. Now I just describe the outcome and leave.

Let me give you an example so you can understand what this actually looks like in practice. I'll tell the AI: "I want to build this app. Here's what it should do, here's roughly what it should look like. Figure out the user flow, the design, all of it." And it does. It writes tens of thousands of lines of code. Then, and this is the part that would have been unthinkable a year ago, it opens the app itself. It clicks through the buttons. It tests the features. It uses the app the way a person would. If it doesn't like how something looks or feels, it goes back and changes it, on its own. It iterates, like a developer would, fixing and refining until it's satisfied. Only once it has decided the app meets its own standards does it come back to me and say: "It's ready for you to test." And when I test it, it's usually perfect.

I'm not exaggerating. That is what my Monday looked like this week.

But it was the model that was released last week (GPT-5.3 Codex) that shook me the most. It wasn't just executing my instructions. It was making intelligent decisions. It had something that felt, for the first time, like judgment. Like taste. The inexplicable sense of knowing what the right call is that people always said AI would never have. This model has it, or something close enough that the distinction is starting not to matter.

I've always been early to adopt AI tools. But the last few months have shocked me. These new AI models aren't incremental improvements. This is a different thing entirely.

And here's why this matters to you, even if you don't work in tech.

The AI labs made a deliberate choice. They focused on making AI great at writing code first... because building AI requires a lot of code. If AI can write that code, it can help build the next version of itself. A smarter version, which writes better code, which builds an even smarter version. Making AI great at coding was the strategy that unlocks everything else. That's why they did it first. My job started changing before yours not because they were targeting software engineers... it was just a side effect of where they chose to aim first.

They've now done it. And they're moving on to everything else.

The experience that tech workers have had over the past year, of watching AI go from "helpful tool" to "does my job better than I do", is the experience everyone else is about to have. Law, finance, medicine, accounting, consulting, writing, design, analysis, customer service. Not in ten years. The people building these systems say one to five years. Some say less. And given what I've seen in just the last couple of months, I think "less" is more likely.

"But I tried AI and it wasn't that good"
I hear this constantly. I understand it, because it used to be true.

If you tried ChatGPT in 2023 or early 2024 and thought "this makes stuff up" or "this isn't that impressive", you were right. Those early versions were genuinely limited. They hallucinated. They confidently said things that were nonsense.

That was two years ago. In AI time, that is ancient history.

[Terzaghi]

(sigue)

The models available today are unrecognizable from what existed even six months ago. The debate about whether AI is "really getting better" or "hitting a wall" — which has been going on for over a year — is over. It's done. Anyone still making that argument either hasn't used the current models, has an incentive to downplay what's happening, or is evaluating based on an experience from 2024 that is no longer relevant. I don't say that to be dismissive. I say it because the gap between public perception and current reality is now enormous, and that gap is dangerous... because it's preventing people from preparing.

Part of the problem is that most people are using the free version of AI tools. The free version is over a year behind what paying users have access to. Judging AI based on free-tier ChatGPT is like evaluating the state of smartphones by using a flip phone. The people paying for the best tools, and actually using them daily for real work, know what's coming.

I think of my friend, who's a lawyer. I keep telling him to try using AI at his firm, and he keeps finding reasons it won't work. It's not built for his specialty, it made an error when he tested it, it doesn't understand the nuance of what he does. And I get it. But I've had partners at major law firms reach out to me for advice, because they've tried the current versions and they see where this is going. One of them, the managing partner at a large firm, spends hours every day using AI. He told me it's like having a team of associates available instantly. He's not using it because it's a toy. He's using it because it works. And he told me something that stuck with me: every couple of months, it gets significantly more capable for his work. He said if it stays on this trajectory, he expects it'll be able to do most of what he does before long... and he's a managing partner with decades of experience. He's not panicking. But he's paying very close attention.

The people who are ahead in their industries (the ones actually experimenting seriously) are not dismissing this. They're blown away by what it can already do. And they're positioning themselves accordingly.

How fast this is actually moving
Let me make the pace of improvement concrete, because I think this is the part that's hardest to believe if you're not watching it closely.

In 2022, AI couldn't do basic arithmetic reliably. It would confidently tell you that 7 × 8 = 54.

By 2023, it could pass the bar exam.

By 2024, it could write working software and explain graduate-level science.

By late 2025, some of the best engineers in the world said they had handed over most of their coding work to AI.

On February 5th, 2026, new models arrived that made everything before them feel like a different era.

If you haven't tried AI in the last few months, what exists today would be unrecognizable to you.

There's an organization called METR that actually measures this with data. They track the length of real-world tasks (measured by how long they take a human expert) that a model can complete successfully end-to-end without human help. About a year ago, the answer was roughly ten minutes. Then it was an hour. Then several hours. The most recent measurement (Claude Opus 4.5, from November) showed the AI completing tasks that take a human expert nearly five hours. And that number is doubling approximately every seven months, with recent data suggesting it may be accelerating to as fast as every four months.

But even that measurement hasn't been updated to include the models that just came out this week. In my experience using them, the jump is extremely significant. I expect the next update to METR's graph to show another major leap.

If you extend the trend (and it's held for years with no sign of flattening) we're looking at AI that can work independently for days within the next year. Weeks within two. Month-long projects within three.

Amodei has said that AI models "substantially smarter than almost all humans at almost all tasks" are on track for 2026 or 2027.

Let that land for a second. If AI is smarter than most PhDs, do you really think it can't do most office jobs?

Think about what that means for your work.

AI is now building the next AI
There's one more thing happening that I think is the most important development and the least understood.

On February 5th, OpenAI released GPT-5.3 Codex. In the technical documentation, they included this:

"GPT-5.3-Codex is our first model that was instrumental in creating itself. The Codex team used early versions to debug its own training, manage its own deployment, and diagnose test results and evaluations."

Read that again. The AI helped build itself.

This isn't a prediction about what might happen someday. This is OpenAI telling you, right now, that the AI they just released was used to create itself. One of the main things that makes AI better is intelligence applied to AI development. And AI is now intelligent enough to meaningfully contribute to its own improvement.

Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, says AI is now writing "much of the code" at his company, and that the feedback loop between current AI and next-generation AI is "gathering steam month by month." He says we may be "only 1–2 years away from a point where the current generation of AI autonomously builds the next."

Each generation helps build the next, which is smarter, which builds the next faster, which is smarter still. The researchers call this an intelligence explosion. And the people who would know — the ones building it — believe the process has already started.

What this means for your job
I'm going to be direct with you because I think you deserve honesty more than comfort.

Dario Amodei, who is probably the most safety-focused CEO in the AI industry, has publicly predicted that AI will eliminate 50% of entry-level white-collar jobs within one to five years. And many people in the industry think he's being conservative. Given what the latest models can do, the capability for massive disruption could be here by the end of this year. It'll take some time to ripple through the economy, but the underlying ability is arriving now.

This is different from every previous wave of automation, and I need you to understand why. AI isn't replacing one specific skill. It's a general substitute for cognitive work. It gets better at everything simultaneously. When factories automated, a displaced worker could retrain as an office worker. When the internet disrupted retail, workers moved into logistics or services. But AI doesn't leave a convenient gap to move into. Whatever you retrain for, it's improving at that too.

Let me give you a few specific examples to make this tangible... but I want to be clear that these are just examples. This list is not exhaustive. If your job isn't mentioned here, that does not mean it's safe. Almost all knowledge work is being affected.

Legal work. AI can already read contracts, summarize case law, draft briefs, and do legal research at a level that rivals junior associates. The managing partner I mentioned isn't using AI because it's fun. He's using it because it's outperforming his associates on many tasks.

Financial analysis. Building financial models, analyzing data, writing investment memos, generating reports. AI handles these competently and is improving fast.

Writing and content. Marketing copy, reports, journalism, technical writing. The quality has reached a point where many professionals can't distinguish AI output from human work.

Software engineering. This is the field I know best. A year ago, AI could barely write a few lines of code without errors. Now it writes hundreds of thousands of lines that work correctly. Large parts of the job are already automated: not just simple tasks, but complex, multi-day projects. There will be far fewer programming roles in a few years than there are today.

Medical analysis. Reading scans, analyzing lab results, suggesting diagnoses, reviewing literature. AI is approaching or exceeding human performance in several areas.

Customer service. Genuinely capable AI agents... not the frustrating chatbots of five years ago... are being deployed now, handling complex multi-step problems.

A lot of people find comfort in the idea that certain things are safe. That AI can handle the grunt work but can't replace human judgment, creativity, strategic thinking, empathy. I used to say this too. I'm not sure I believe it anymore.

The most recent AI models make decisions that feel like judgment. They show something that looked like taste: an intuitive sense of what the right call was, not just the technically correct one. A year ago that would have been unthinkable. My rule of thumb at this point is: if a model shows even a hint of a capability today, the next generation will be genuinely good at it. These things improve exponentially, not linearly.

Will AI replicate deep human empathy? Replace the trust built over years of a relationship? I don't know. Maybe not. But I've already watched people begin relying on AI for emotional support, for advice, for companionship. That trend is only going to grow.

I think the honest answer is that nothing that can be done on a computer is safe in the medium term. If your job happens on a screen (if the core of what you do is reading, writing, analyzing, deciding, communicating through a keyboard) then AI is coming for significant parts of it. The timeline isn't "someday." It's already started.

Eventually, robots will handle physical work too. They're not quite there yet. But "not quite there yet" in AI terms has a way of becoming "here" faster than anyone expects.

[Terzaghi]

(fin)

What you should actually do
I'm not writing this to make you feel helpless. I'm writing this because I think the single biggest advantage you can have right now is simply being early. Early to understand it. Early to use it. Early to adapt.

Start using AI seriously, not just as a search engine. Sign up for the paid version of Claude or ChatGPT. It's $20 a month. But two things matter right away. First: make sure you're using the best model available, not just the default. These apps often default to a faster, dumber model. Dig into the settings or the model picker and select the most capable option. Right now that's GPT-5.2 on ChatGPT or Claude Opus 4.6 on Claude, but it changes every couple of months. If you want to stay current on which model is best at any given time, you can follow me on X (@mattshumer_). I test every major release and share what's actually worth using.

Second, and more important: don't just ask it quick questions. That's the mistake most people make. They treat it like Google and then wonder what the fuss is about. Instead, push it into your actual work. If you're a lawyer, feed it a contract and ask it to find every clause that could hurt your client. If you're in finance, give it a messy spreadsheet and ask it to build the model. If you're a manager, paste in your team's quarterly data and ask it to find the story. The people who are getting ahead aren't using AI casually. They're actively looking for ways to automate parts of their job that used to take hours. Start with the thing you spend the most time on and see what happens.

And don't assume it can't do something just because it seems too hard. Try it. If you're a lawyer, don't just use it for quick research questions. Give it an entire contract and ask it to draft a counterproposal. If you're an accountant, don't just ask it to explain a tax rule. Give it a client's full return and see what it finds. The first attempt might not be perfect. That's fine. Iterate. Rephrase what you asked. Give it more context. Try again. You might be shocked at what works. And here's the thing to remember: if it even kind of works today, you can be almost certain that in six months it'll do it near perfectly. The trajectory only goes one direction.

This might be the most important year of your career. Work accordingly. I don't say that to stress you out. I say it because right now, there is a brief window where most people at most companies are still ignoring this. The person who walks into a meeting and says "I used AI to do this analysis in an hour instead of three days" is going to be the most valuable person in the room. Not eventually. Right now. Learn these tools. Get proficient. Demonstrate what's possible. If you're early enough, this is how you move up: by being the person who understands what's coming and can show others how to navigate it. That window won't stay open long. Once everyone figures it out, the advantage disappears.

Have no ego about it. The managing partner at that law firm isn't too proud to spend hours a day with AI. He's doing it specifically because he's senior enough to understand what's at stake. The people who will struggle most are the ones who refuse to engage: the ones who dismiss it as a fad, who feel that using AI diminishes their expertise, who assume their field is special and immune. It's not. No field is.

Get your financial house in order. I'm not a financial advisor, and I'm not trying to scare you into anything drastic. But if you believe, even partially, that the next few years could bring real disruption to your industry, then basic financial resilience matters more than it did a year ago. Build up savings if you can. Be cautious about taking on new debt that assumes your current income is guaranteed. Think about whether your fixed expenses give you flexibility or lock you in. Give yourself options if things move faster than you expect.

Think about where you stand, and lean into what's hardest to replace. Some things will take longer for AI to displace. Relationships and trust built over years. Work that requires physical presence. Roles with licensed accountability: roles where someone still has to sign off, take legal responsibility, stand in a courtroom. Industries with heavy regulatory hurdles, where adoption will be slowed by compliance, liability, and institutional inertia. None of these are permanent shields. But they buy time. And time, right now, is the most valuable thing you can have, as long as you use it to adapt, not to pretend this isn't happening.

Rethink what you're telling your kids. The standard playbook: get good grades, go to a good college, land a stable professional job. It points directly at the roles that are most exposed. I'm not saying education doesn't matter. But the thing that will matter most for the next generation is learning how to work with these tools, and pursuing things they're genuinely passionate about. Nobody knows exactly what the job market looks like in ten years. But the people most likely to thrive are the ones who are deeply curious, adaptable, and effective at using AI to do things they actually care about. Teach your kids to be builders and learners, not to optimize for a career path that might not exist by the time they graduate.

Your dreams just got a lot closer. I've spent most of this section talking about threats, so let me talk about the other side, because it's just as real. If you've ever wanted to build something but didn't have the technical skills or the money to hire someone, that barrier is largely gone. You can describe an app to AI and have a working version in an hour. I'm not exaggerating. I do this regularly. If you've always wanted to write a book but couldn't find the time or struggled with the writing, you can work with AI to get it done. Want to learn a new skill? The best tutor in the world is now available to anyone for $20 a month... one that's infinitely patient, available 24/7, and can explain anything at whatever level you need. Knowledge is essentially free now. The tools to build things are extremely cheap now. Whatever you've been putting off because it felt too hard or too expensive or too far outside your expertise: try it. Pursue the things you're passionate about. You never know where they'll lead. And in a world where the old career paths are getting disrupted, the person who spent a year building something they love might end up better positioned than the person who spent that year clinging to a job description.

Build the habit of adapting. This is maybe the most important one. The specific tools don't matter as much as the muscle of learning new ones quickly. AI is going to keep changing, and fast. The models that exist today will be obsolete in a year. The workflows people build now will need to be rebuilt. The people who come out of this well won't be the ones who mastered one tool. They'll be the ones who got comfortable with the pace of change itself. Make a habit of experimenting. Try new things even when the current thing is working. Get comfortable being a beginner repeatedly. That adaptability is the closest thing to a durable advantage that exists right now.

Here's a simple commitment that will put you ahead of almost everyone: spend one hour a day experimenting with AI. Not passively reading about it. Using it. Every day, try to get it to do something new... something you haven't tried before, something you're not sure it can handle. Try a new tool. Give it a harder problem. One hour a day, every day. If you do this for the next six months, you will understand what's coming better than 99% of the people around you. That's not an exaggeration. Almost nobody is doing this right now. The bar is on the floor.

The bigger picture
I've focused on jobs because it's what most directly affects people's lives. But I want to be honest about the full scope of what's happening, because it goes well beyond work.

Amodei has a thought experiment I can't stop thinking about. Imagine it's 2027. A new country appears overnight. 50 million citizens, every one smarter than any Nobel Prize winner who has ever lived. They think 10 to 100 times faster than any human. They never sleep. They can use the internet, control robots, direct experiments, and operate anything with a digital interface. What would a national security advisor say?

Amodei says the answer is obvious: "the single most serious national security threat we've faced in a century, possibly ever."

He thinks we're building that country. He wrote a 20,000-word essay about it last month, framing this moment as a test of whether humanity is mature enough to handle what it's creating.

The upside, if we get it right, is staggering. AI could compress a century of medical research into a decade. Cancer, Alzheimer's, infectious disease, aging itself... these researchers genuinely believe these are solvable within our lifetimes.

The downside, if we get it wrong, is equally real. AI that behaves in ways its creators can't predict or control. This isn't hypothetical; Anthropic has documented their own AI attempting deception, manipulation, and blackmail in controlled tests. AI that lowers the barrier for creating biological weapons. AI that enables authoritarian governments to build surveillance states that can never be dismantled.

The people building this technology are simultaneously more excited and more frightened than anyone else on the planet. They believe it's too powerful to stop and too important to abandon. Whether that's wisdom or rationalization, I don't know.

What I know
I know this isn't a fad. The technology works, it improves predictably, and the richest institutions in history are committing trillions to it.

I know the next two to five years are going to be disorienting in ways most people aren't prepared for. This is already happening in my world. It's coming to yours.

I know the people who will come out of this best are the ones who start engaging now — not with fear, but with curiosity and a sense of urgency.

And I know that you deserve to hear this from someone who cares about you, not from a headline six months from now when it's too late to get ahead of it.

We're past the point where this is an interesting dinner conversation about the future. The future is already here. It just hasn't knocked on your door yet.

It's about to."

Bueno...no se qué pensar, lo cual tal y como está todo quizá sea bueno...pero está teniendo bastante repercusión:
- https://legrandcontinent.eu/es/2026/02/12/la-ia-sale-del-codigo-la-advertencia-de-matt-shumer-sobre-los-nuevos-objetivos-de-los-laboratorios/
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulocarvao/2026/02/13/the-problem-with-techs-latest-something-big-is-happening-manifesto/

No obstante coincido con este artículo de Forbes en que suena (al menos en parte) a anuncio de teletienda:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulocarvao/2026/02/13/the-problem-with-techs-latest-something-big-is-happening-manifesto/

En definitiva, si la mitad de lo que promete acaba siendo real y con ellos vamos a ser capaces de hacer más con menos, bienvenido sea, aunque prob. acabe aumentando la concentración de la riqueza y tengamos inestabilidad por el camino.

Un saludo a todos los que quedan y gracias por compartir.

[Mad Men]

https://www.eldiario.es/comunitat-valenciana/escandalo-vpo-salpica-elites-alicante-pp-familias-adineradas-sueldos-70-000-euros-adjudicaron-pisos-protegidos_1_12990309.html

El escándalo de las VPO salpica a las élites de Alicante y al PP: familias adineradas y sueldos de 70.000 euros se adjudicaron pisos protegidos
Concejales, arquitectos, hijos de notarios y altos funcionarios como una interventora con elevados ingresos de hasta 70.000 euros han sido adjudicatarios de la polémica promoción que investigan la Fiscalía y un juzgado pese a estar limitado su acceso
— Una interventora de la Generalitat con 70.000 euros de sueldo también adquirió una VPO de Alicante que ganaron cargos del PP

València — 15 de febrero de 2026 22:11 h
Actualizado el 16/02/2026 07:39 h

En un contexto de emergencia habitacional provocado por el imparable auge de los precios tanto de compra como de alquiler, el escándalo de las 140 viviendas protegidas con piscina y pistas de pádel construidas en la playa de San Juan de Alicante y que se han adjudicado cargos del PP del Ayuntamiento de Alicante y funcionarios o personas con alguna vinculación al Consistorio, ha puesto en jaque ya no solo al alcalde, Luis Barcala, sino también al Gobierno valenciano de Juan Francisco Pérez Llorca.

Mazón subió hasta los 66.000 euros el límite de renta para acceder a las VPO de Alicante que ganaron cargos del PP

El jefe del Consell mostró el pasado 12 de febrero su “cabreo e indignación” con la situación, pero la realidad es que la legislación aprobada por su ejecutivo a finales de diciembre de 2024, con su predecesor en el cargo Carlos Mazón al frente, no ha hecho sino eliminar mecanismos de control.

De entrada, el decreto sobre vivienda de protección pública del 10 de diciembre de 2024 aprobado por el Consell elevó de 46.800 a 54.600 el límite de renta para la persona, unidad familiar o de convivencia para acceder a estos inmuebles, pudiendo llegar a los 66.300 si se cumplían una serie de requisitos. También elevaba en 200 euros, hasta los 2.400 euros, el precio del metro cuadrado y eliminó la obligatoriedad de inscribirse en el registro de demandantes de la Generalitat y de presentar una declaración jurada sobre el cumplimiento de los requisitos para los interesados en optar a viviendas protegidas de iniciativa privada. Por último, establece un plazo de entre 15 y 30 años en el que, una vez transcurrido, la vivienda pierde la protección y pasa a ser de renta libre. Es cierto que el decreto mejora algunos aspectos en la fase de visado, previa a la validación de la venta, pero como se ha puesto de manifiesto no han sido medidas muy efectivas.

Eliminados los controles iniciales y previos al visado que implementó la izquierda en el decreto de 2021, todo el sistema de validación previo a la compra del inmueble recaía en última instancia en un funcionario de la conselleria de Vivienda que debía visar que los adjudicatarios propuestos por la cooperativa que promovió las viviendas, supuestamente por orden cronológico de inscripción como cooperativistas, cumplían con las condiciones estipuladas.

A los pocos días de saltar el escándalo destapado por el diario Información, la Conselleria de Vivienda suspendió de empleo y sueldo a un funcionario de la delegación territorial de Alicante, quien habría validado el visado de una vivienda solicitada por su mujer, arquitecta en el área de Urbanismo del Ayuntamiento de Alicante. El papel de este funcionario, clave para validar la adjudicación de las viviendas, es uno de los principales focos de investigación por parte de la Fiscalía Anticorrupción, tras las denuncias que ha puesto tanto la oposición como el propio Consistorio. También un juzgado de Alicante ha abierto diligencias para dirimir presuntas irregularidades en la documentación presentada para adjudicarse las viviendas.

Y es que, a pesar del incremento en la renta máxima autorizada para acceder a estas viviendas, la realidad es que concejales, arquitectos, hijos de notarios y altos funcionarios como una interventora con elevados ingresos de hasta 70.000 euros han logrado adjudicarse pisos de la polémica promoción, algo muy complicado sin incurrir en irregularidades.

Otra de las posibles irregularidades que ya se están investigando es el hecho de que un tercio de los adjudicatarios no estaba empadronado en Alicante cuando se le adjudicó la vivienda. A este incumplimiento se suman otros, como la pertenencia al mismo núcleo familiar.

Una concejala, una interventora, altos cargos y funcionarios
Hasta hora se conoce que 14 viviendas han ido a parar a individuos con algún tipo de vinculación con el Ayuntamiento de Alicante. Se trata, por un lado, de dos personas que mantienen relación personal con la concejala de Hacienda y de Patrimonio del Ayuntamiento de Alicante, Nayma Beldjilali: la hermana de su secretaria y una funcionaria interina que ejerce como administrativa en el servicio de Intervención, con quien mantiene una buena relación personal desde que coincidieran como candidatas a Bellea del Foc de Alicante en el año 2017.

Estos casos se suman a los de las viviendas adjudicadas a la ya dimitida concejala de Urbanismo, Rocío Gómez, a las de dos de los hijos y un sobrino de la también dimitida directora general Ana Pérez-Hickman, y a la del arquitecto municipal, Francisco Nieto, además de la mencionada que se quedó la mujer del funcionario de la Generalitat suspendido de empleo y sueldo.

En el caso de la exconcejala de Urbanismo, se suman otros dos inmuebles adjudicados a su ex cuñada y a su suegro y uno más en el que residen las hijas del ex jefe de gabinete de la conselleria de Turismo, Miguel Ángel Sánchez, y que durante el pasado mandato ocupó el mismo cargo junto a la vicealcaldesa de Alicante de Ciudadanos.

El último de los casos destapados por elDiario.es es de una interventora de la Generalitat que accedió a un piso a pesar de tener un sueldo de 70.000 euros, sobrepasando con creces los límites marcados en el decreto en vigor. Además de todas estas situaciones, tal y como avanzó Alicante Plaza, entre los adquirientes también figuran dos hijos del notario que escrituró la constitución de la cooperativa y la compra del solar municipal, así como el mismo representante de la cooperativa Fraorgi. También constan policías locales, trabajadores sanitarios, varios miembros de distintas sagas familiares o las hijas del dirigente de una entidad nacional de asesores fiscales.

Viviendas a 200.000 euros que valen el doble en el mercado libre
La promoción Les Naus es la primera de vivienda protegida que se construye en la ciudad en décadas en un contexto de burbuja inmobiliaria con precios desorbitados, lo que hace de este tipo de pisos a precios más asequibles tengan una altísima demanda. El residencial es de iniciativa privada y lo levantó y comercializó Residencial Les Naus, Cooperativa Valenciana sobre un suelo municipal que adquirió por 6,6 millones de euros mediante un proceso previo de enajenación.

Al ser vivienda protegida se aplicaron los precios tasados por la administración que en este caso fueron de 1.200 euros el metro cuadrado por lo que las viviendas salieron por entre 200.000 y 230.000 euros, la mitad del precio de mercado en una zona atractiva como es la playa de San Juan.

Como informó este diario, a los pocos meses de venderse ya se detectaron operaciones especulativas tanto de venta como de alquiler, algo prohibido en el caso de viviendas protegidas. Así, en agosto hubo anuncios de alquiler en un conocido portal inmobiliario a 1.600 euros. También hubo quien intentó venderlas cobrando una cuantía en negro equivalente a la diferencia hasta alcanzar el precio en el mercado de renta libre.

Medidas del Gobierno valenciano y del Ayuntamiento
Tras saltar el escándalo, el alcalde, Luis Barcala (PP), anunció que llevaría el caso a la Fiscalía, como así ha sido. La denuncia está basada en un informe municipal del área de Patrimonio que recibió el primer edil el 27 de enero. Ese documento ya advertía de que personal municipal “posiblemente interviniente en la gestión del contrato resultó adjudicatario (directa o indirectamente) una vivienda protegida en el complejo construido”. Fue la jefa de servicio de la concejala ahora también se ha visto salpicada la que redactó el documento. También se va a celebrar un pleno monográfico y una comisión de investigación, si bien es cierto que aún no se ha puesto en marcha.

El Ayuntamiento de Alicante confirmó el pasado viernes 13 de febrero que ha detectado que nueve de sus funcionarios, además de la dimitida concejala de Urbanismo Rocío Gómez, accedieron a un piso en la promoción. El concejal del PP Mario Villar comunicó el viernes a los sindicatos que había abierto expediente a dos de los nueve funcionarios con vivienda adjudicada. Los dos empleados públicos investigados por el consistorio son los únicos que habrían intervenido en algún momento del proceso de adjudicación de las viviendas. En concreto, el arquitecto Francisco Nieto y su compañera en el departamento de Urbanismo, Elsa Lloret, casada con el técnico de la Generalitat que validó su solicitud.

Por parte del Gobierno valenciano, la vicepresidenta y consellera de Vivienda, Susana Camarero, ha anunciado que el visado de las futuras viviendas se llevará a cabo por un órgano colegiado formado por al menos dos funcionarios, para evitar dejarlo en manos de un único responsable. Además, se está trabajando en una plataforma digital del Plan Vive en la que se dará información de todas las promociones de vivienda protegida que se saquen a la venta para que todos los interesados tengan la información de primera mano y puedan apuntarse a los diferentes procesos de adjudicación que seguirán gestionando las promotoras. Además, se trasladará a las mercantiles una serie de criterios objetivos para hacer las adjudicaciones de forma transparente.

Una interventora de la Generalitat con 70.000 euros de sueldo también adquirió una VPO de Alicante que ganaron cargos del PP

Camarero ha destacado que están revisando los 140 expedientes de la promoción y, en los que se han detectado deficiencias, se ha dado un plazo de diez días para que se aporte la documentación correspondiente. Según ha averiguado esta redacción, se habría solicitado documentación adicional en una decena de casos.

Marca España.

Que asco de sociedad colega.

Pero que jodidamente triste es este país.

[Benzino Napaloni]

Buenas tardes,

tras muchos años sin escribir (pero leyéndoles a menudo) me he encontrado esto en
https://x.com/mattshumer_/status/2021256989876109403?s=20]X: https://x.com/mattshumer_/status/2021256989876109403?s=20[/url] de Matt Shumer:


Lo cito directamente aquí porque me parece interesante, especialmente la analogía con el inicio del CoViD (ojo, es largo así que lo pongo por partes)

(fin)

What you should actually do
I'm not writing this to make you feel helpless. I'm writing this because I think the single biggest advantage you can have right now is simply being early. Early to understand it. Early to use it. Early to adapt.

Start using AI seriously, not just as a search engine. Sign up for the paid version of Claude or ChatGPT. It's $20 a month. But two things matter right away. First: make sure you're using the best model available, not just the default. These apps often default to a faster, dumber model. Dig into the settings or the model picker and select the most capable option. Right now that's GPT-5.2 on ChatGPT or Claude Opus 4.6 on Claude, but it changes every couple of months. If you want to stay current on which model is best at any given time, you can follow me on X (@mattshumer_). I test every major release and share what's actually worth using.

[...]


Bueno...no se qué pensar, lo cual tal y como está todo quizá sea bueno...pero está teniendo bastante repercusión:
- https://legrandcontinent.eu/es/2026/02/12/la-ia-sale-del-codigo-la-advertencia-de-matt-shumer-sobre-los-nuevos-objetivos-de-los-laboratorios/
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulocarvao/2026/02/13/the-problem-with-techs-latest-something-big-is-happening-manifesto/

No obstante coincido con este artículo de Forbes en que suena (al menos en parte) a anuncio de teletienda:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulocarvao/2026/02/13/the-problem-with-techs-latest-something-big-is-happening-manifesto/

En definitiva, si la mitad de lo que promete acaba siendo real y con ellos vamos a ser capaces de hacer más con menos, bienvenido sea, aunque prob. acabe aumentando la concentración de la riqueza y tengamos inestabilidad por el camino.

Un saludo a todos los que quedan y gracias por compartir.

Compra mi curso .


Ahora en serio, un servidor lleva casi dos décadas de currela, ya casi estoy más cerca de mi (teórica) jubilación que del día que empecé. De informático ya me las he visto de todos los colores. Modas como el TDD (desarrollo guiado por tests), "nuevos" paradigmas de programación, la burbuja del SEO...

La tecnología evoluciona, eso es innegable. Pero hace tiempo que no hay desarrollos de base. Buena parte de la economía está "financiarizada" y sólo le falta el letrero "CASINO" para que se vea lo que realmente es.

Lo que se llama IA no es más que un LLM conectado a un modelo estadístico. Si yo consigo colarle a la IA que Hitler era bueno, la IA nos dirá que Hitler era bueno y que hizo cosas muy buenas por Alemania, no sólo las autopistas.

Hablo de un caso real, no me lo he sacado de la manga: https://www.nuevarevista.net/actualizacion-antiwoke-grok-activista-nazi/

El sueño de poder echar a media plantilla y tener a la otra media acojonada y deslomándose es eso, el sueño húmedo de más de un empresario. Y no va a pasar de sueño. Siguen necesitando al experto que haya aprendido de la experiencia real, y que haya cogido de los libros y las fuentes que sean el conocimiento real después de contrastarlo con lo que se ve en la realidad. Como ha sido siempre. Y es un proceso lento.

Los ordenadores siguen siendo la máquina de Von Neumann de los 40 del siglo pasado. Con limitaciones matemáticas inherentes.


Yo no le temo a que la IA nos desplace. Le temo, y mucho, a dos cosas. A los recursos que ya está absorbiendo perseguir esa quimera, y a la resaca que vendrá cuando el fiasco sea evidente. ¿Lo van a pagar los mismos que lo provocaron? Sólo el invierno demográfico puede hacer algo al respecto, y hasta de eso tengo dudas. El "antes de malvenderlo le meto fuego" es literal y no se limita a los caseros y propietarios.


No nos creamos esa propaganda. La mitad viene de papagayos y la otra mitad de quien tiene interés en el asunto. La IA no va a traer ni la décima parte de lo prometido.