Once AI coding agents reach a high performance level, objective benchmarks become less important than a developer's subjective experience. Like a warrior choosing a sword, the best tool is often the one that has the right "feel," writes code in a preferred style, and integrates seamlessly into a human workflow.

The proliferation of AI leaderboards incentivizes companies to optimize models for specific benchmarks. This creates a risk of "acing the SATs" where models excel on tests but don't necessarily make progress on solving real-world problems. This focus on gaming metrics could diverge from creating genuine user value.

A consortium including leaders from Google and DeepMind has defined AGI as matching the cognitive versatility of a "well-educated adult" across 10 domains. This new framework moves beyond abstract debate, showing a concrete 30-point leap in AGI score from GPT-4 (27%) to a projected GPT-5 (57%).

The term "data labeling" minimizes the complexity of AI training. A better analogy is "raising a child," as the process involves teaching values, creativity, and nuanced judgment. This reframe highlights the deep responsibility of shaping the "objective functions" for future AI.

Current AI models resemble a student who grinds 10,000 hours on a narrow task. They achieve superhuman performance on benchmarks but lack the broad, adaptable intelligence of someone with less specific training but better general reasoning. This explains the gap between eval scores and real-world utility.

Human intuition is a poor gauge of AI's actual productivity benefits. A study found developers felt significantly sped up by AI coding tools even when objective measurements showed no speed increase. The real value may come from enabling tasks that otherwise wouldn't be attempted, rather than simply accelerating existing workflows.

The primary bottleneck in improving AI is no longer data or compute, but the creation of 'evals'—tests that measure a model's capabilities. These evals act as product requirement documents (PRDs) for researchers, defining what success looks like and guiding the training process.

The effectiveness of an AI system isn't solely dependent on the model's sophistication. It's a collaboration between high-quality training data, the model itself, and the contextual understanding of how to apply both to solve a real-world problem. Neglecting data or context leads to poor outcomes.

Quantifying the "goodness" of an AI-generated summary is analogous to measuring the impact of a peacebuilding initiative. Both require moving beyond simple quantitative data (clicks, meetings held) to define and measure complex, ineffable outcomes by focusing on the qualitative "so what."