AI links, 1/18/2026
Dean Ball on agents; the Zvi on Claude code; Hollis Robbins on LLM's as backward-looking; Justin Curl on lawyers and AI
State governments will introduce hundreds of bills about artificial intelligence; almost none of them—perhaps even literally zero—will be written with coding agents in mind. They will be chatbot regulations. It is quite possible policy debate America will have in 2026 is already antiquated.
By the end of this year, the least important thing you will be able to do with frontier AI systems will be getting chatbots to answer questions, but this is still how most people will think of “AI.” Expect cognitive dissonance as a result.
I note that the hype has been almost entirely Claude Code in particular, skipping over OpenAI’s Codex or Google’s Jules. Claude Code with Opus 4.5 is, for now, special.
InternetVin: The more I [mess] around with Claude Code, the more I feel like 2026 is the tipping point for how we interact with computers. Will never be the same again. …
Reports of productivity with Claude Code and Opus 4.5 are off the charts.
Satchel Paige famously said, “Don’t look back. Somebody may be gaining on you.” Now it’s like “Don’t let a week go by without test-driving the latest release. Somebody may be lapping you.” Sheesh.
A firm should not depend on an algorithmic system for identifying emerging markets or cultural shifts. In fast-moving sectors like fashion or digital media, novelty will always be ahead of any foundation model.
This makes sense, but I’ve learned never to say never about the potential capabilities of these models.
AI that makes lawyers more efficient could reduce billable hours, which is good for clients but potentially bad for firm revenue.
Of course, in a competitive market with price transparency, the law firm that extends billable hours by doing without AI will not keep getting clients.
Of course, lawyers worry about confidentiality in using AI. If the AI uses the lawyer’s activities as training data, this could compromise information that is supposed to stay private.
substacks referenced above: @
@
@
Per the "it'll never be able to do that" debate...what was said and written only a few months ago is already...and clearly...outdated. I thought those assertions were premature, and I think I was right.
"lawyers worrying about the billable hour" is not a thing. Billable hours are an imperfect solution to a highly variable and unpredictable set of services that requires neurotic attention to detail of the most boring stuff, where every chink in the armor is a potential exploit that can never be patched.