I can build fully functional applications without writing a single line of code with Claude. In my free time. On a weekend. I'm going to release one of them pretty soon. A toddler being able to do this instead of an industry veteran isn't that compelling. Avoiding the few pitfalls of the LLM getting stuck and taking a while to get out isn't that valuable.
>Good enough? There's no such thing.
This is just wrong. Maybe you can't imagine good enough, I can. And I think "better" is going to start getting diminishing returns as the velocity of improvements I expect to slow and the value of improvements are going to become less meaningful. The "cost" of a LLM making mistakes is already pretty low, cutting it in half is better, sure, but it's so low already I don't particularly care if it gets some multiple more rare.
LLM only fairly recently underwent a step change from "maybe someday" to actually useful now. That opened many new doors that people didn't even think were possible. Getting incrementally better at something they are already pretty good at isn't that impressive. But getting drastically better at something they are currently bad at, will drive new models and new research.