(Based on your comment history I'm guessing you haven't experienced this yourself yet.)
However, it's been a full quarter now since November 2025.
Based on facts on the ground, i.e. the rate and quality of new software and features we observe, change has been nowhere as dramatic as your comment would suggest.
It seems to me that a possible explanation is that people get very excited about massive speedups in specific tasks, but the bottleneck of the system shifts somewhere else immediately (e.g, human capacity for learning, team coordination costs, communication delays).
I think it's a bit early to expect to see huge visible output from these new tools. A lot of people are still spinning up on them - learning to use a coding agent effectively takes months.
And for people who are spun up, there's a lot more to shipping new features and products that writing the code. I expect we'll start to see companies ship features to customers that benefited from Opus 4.5/4.6 and Codex 5.2/5.3 over the next few months, but I'm not surprised there hasn't been a huge swell in stuff-that-shipped in just the ~10 weeks since those models become available.
There is one notable example that's captured the zeitgeist: https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw had its first commit on November 25th 2025, 3 months later it's had more than 10,000 commits from 600 contributors, attracted 196,000 stars and (kind-of) been featured in a Superbowl commercial (apparently that's what the AI.com thing was, if anyone could get the page to load - https://x.com/kris/status/2020663711015514399 )
The only other code that I write is for a handful of industry specific products that are not challenging in any way to code but are fun to design for the specific needs of my users and are informed by their incredible feedback from the field. The time and effort to play games with an LLM prompt would have effectively zero value here and again is the opposite of what makes these products great enough to be sold by word of mouth alone.
Aside from all of this I have no desire to pay a subscription to a service that requires me to submit all of my code to their engine for output. Given their models apparent fondness for taking copyrighted code and passing it off as it's own I would not put it past them to play games behind my back with my work.
Finally I see no new "AI billionaires" suddenly rising out of the field and I see no "AI heavy" companies suddenly increasing their profits, productivity or quality in any way. I hear what you are saying, and you're certainly not alone in saying it, but I see zero evidence that it's actually meaningful in the real world software market.
My experience (as someone how works with a team of PhD's) is that code is about 30% of what we do but in these, 75% are "trivial things" (building charts, quickly designing apps to process information, etc). Out of these 75%, AI certainly helps us at least 50% of the time (and amazes me 10% of the time :-))
> I see no new "AI billionaires" suddenly rising out of the field and I see no "AI heavy" companies suddenly increasing their profits, productivity or quality in any way.
Exactly what I was telling myself yesterday. That's rather not in line with the media coverage.
So far it's all been endless unfounded FOMO hype by people who have something to sell or podcasts to be on. I am so tired of it.
I know you'll dismiss that as the same old crap you've heard before, but it's pretty widely observed now.
a year ago they could easily one shot full stack features in my hobby next.js apps but imploded in my work codebase
as of opus 4.6 they can now one shot full features in a complex js/go data streaming & analysis tool but implode in low latency voice synthesis systems (...for now...)
just depends on how you're using it (skill issues are a thing) and what you're working on