[MaybiusStrip]

The only people underwhelmed by AI in February 2026 are people who have formed an identity around being AI skeptics over the last couple years and are struggling to shed it. I haven't met anyone who has seriously used the new models who isn't a at least a bit awed and disturbed.

[thomassmith65]

That's very true in terms of how capable these chatbots clearly are, but I believe the author was using 'underwhelming' to refer to the societal impact.

So far, life goes on roughly the same as it did five years ago. This can feel 'underwhelming' in contrast to the onslaught of public discussion about, and huge investments in, AI.

Most of us here on HN are programmers, and we all know how radically LLMs have changed our code projects. Even so, the change to our everyday lives (aside from our work or hobby project) is not, just yet, glaringly obvious. This year, it's mainly... every website shoves an AI box on its site that nobody seems to want!

[bojan]

There is also that contrast about it being genuinely useful for work/programming and the fact that, for now, it changes the rest of my life in a negative way - by making PC hardware unavailable, by hearing every day I'll be out of work in 6-24 months, and by having to deal with people taking the information from Chat for granted.

[Gud]

lol “chatbots”.

I’m using these chatbots to produce advanced software. Chatbots, get real

[thomassmith65]

Is this a debate over who is the harder-core developer? That's of interest to nobody. Probably not even us.

[sumanthvepa]

Not true. I'm a really heavy user of AI. And it's improved my productivity dramatically as a developer, but it doesn't work in every situation even in programming. I see it as an indispensible tool, but its not, right now, a tool that will replace me as a programmer or product manager or salesperson, or marketer. or (in my case) an owner and investor.

Will that happen in the future, maybe. but I don't have enough insight into how AI is evolving in the labs to make a judgement on that.

[skeeter2020]

This statment is really annoying and getting boring. There are A LOT of us who have built careers evaluating technology with healthy skepticism, finding where it works and were it doesn't, excited to share & learn - and we've heard "this time it's different" many times. Now because we refuse to jump in without that same nuance and thought, and proclaim "everything's different over night!" we're branded as ludites when we're really trying find a balance.

I don't hear people saying "nothing is going to change", but I do hear questions about the timeline and if the current levels of investment match returns. Branding these people as stuck in some sort of negative identity is bullshit.

[shruggedatlas]

What is your position on AI?

[skeeter2020]

in a nutshell: AI - even if transformative and in the future a widely used general-purpose technology - is normal technology. I reject the technological determinism that is being fed to us, especially the idea that AI itself is an agent in defining its own future. I think adoption and the post-adoption spread will be slow & uncertain (relative to the current messaging) regardless of where it ultimately takes us. I think the absolute societal impact is grossly overstated, and the roles of institutions shaping the path underestimated or ignored.

[danny_codes]

> especially the idea that AI itself is an agent in defining its own future

Why? I see no evidence that this won’t be the case.. or isn’t already

[emp17344]

You’re creating a false dichotomy to alienate perceived opponents. Frankly, it’s really annoying and close-minded, and you haven’t contributed anything to the conversation.

[hdgvhicv]

What disturbs me is the speed of improvement, moreso then the capability.

Maybe it will plateau in the next 6-24 months, in which case it will “only” be as disruptive as the computer or industrial revolutions, albeit at a faster pace.

If not, I don’t think anyone can predict.

[jdub]

You're likely to find more nuance in opposing views than your "underwhelmed by AI" generalisation could represent.