One of my high school piano friends went on to become a concert pianist. The difference between him and the rest of us was that music was everything for him - its what he did to relax, his social life, his hobby, his work, and his passion. There were, like, some months where music felt almost like that for me but for him it always did. I think there's no mysterious talent you have to have, just a psychological problem. if you get genuine fulfillment in all areas of life just by thinking about and doing music all the time, the ceiling is much higher.
Of course. I agree with you. You will only make it in that field if there’s literally nothing else you can imagine doing.
But there’s still a starting point and ceiling in intrinsic ability.
I’m curious why you think there’s no difference in inherent abilities? Some people are more “naturally” skilled at some things than others, at a baseline. You can look to see examples of this everywhere.
That doesn’t negate the dedication/sweat/tears of people who have high skill, but many of those people also started several miles ahead.
I guess it's too extreme to say there's no difference, I just don't love the explanation of there being some hard ceiling because it seems like the real process is incredibly uncertain and unpredictable. There's a million little skills you have to learn as a pianist and also many brief moments where you suddenly grow a lot because you finally grasped something important. In other words I feel like the "ceiling" gets broken every once and a while, and the thing that separates the great musicians is they get satisfaction doing it even during the extremely frustrating times where you're stuck at some ceiling. Which also helps them maintain hope and curiosity and see the next step forward when it does finally come. It feels like the ceiling is often a psychological one, not a natural one!
I really love the “brief moments” part too. I believe growth (maturation, skill improvement, etc.) happens in discrete moments that is then reinforced by practice (or lost by the lack thereof).
> stuck at some ceiling… next step forward
Then they weren’t at their ceiling :) they were at a local minimum of optimization. And getting out of a local minimum is insanely rewarding, regardless of the skill.
And maybe you’re right - maybe there is no hard ceiling. But there are learning rates and diminishing returns involved. It might take me 10x longer to get from the 95% percentile than 96% percentile, and then 100x to get to 96.5%. (Obviously percentiles are quite abstract for art). Maybe we can always improve given the right practice and guidance, even if the improvement is marginal. I just define the marginal returns area as a “ceiling”.
But… all of this can co-exist with “natural” baselines of talent.
I hate to admit that I will never be as “good” of a pianist as Martha Argerich… but I just won’t be, no matter how much I practice. I also will never be able to run as fast as Noah Lyles, no matter how much I train.
And that’s ok.
I think there is a tendency to fight back against the idea of natural talent/skill because this idea can diminish the extreme hard work it takes to hone and develop talent.
Noah Lyles could outrun 99% of us without training, but he had to dedicate his life to beat the last 1%. Most people probably don’t realize/understand how much dedication it takes to climb that final mountain.
But “inherent” talent is still a real thing. If we knew “why”.
My final thought is that high baselines can often be counterproductive for growth. Anyway, thanks for chatting about this with me.
As someone who finds a huge amount of enjoyment in developing using Opus 4.6 in Claude code, I’d love to know what other harnesses people use that deliver the same experience as CC. CC is a vibe-coded mess, but it works very well for me.
I do a lot of work in R and find codex (5.4 & 5.3-codex) just totally drop the ball with R. Anthropic’s models are far better with R, so I use them.
But I do wonder how much the harness affects performance.
Would GPT-5.3-Codex perform just as well if it was plugged into CC?
CC is riddled with bugs and poor UI/UX. It's effective in spite of that. Just think what a well-designed agent would do in place of that. I don't use other coding agents currently because the subscription with CC gets me what I need and I don't want to pay retail token rates. I would 100% prefer an open source agent so I could fork it and tweak it to my needs.
Every time I hear someone say that software is successful in spite of something I find that looking harder shows some interesting choices.
If this software succeeds despite the manifest failures that are pointed out here, that’s a sign that something is working. We could argue that something is just access to the model, but plenty of other companies sell that and they don’t seem to do as well.
In this case it's because they gate subscription access to their agent. If not for that, I wouldn't be using Claude Code. I like Anthropic overall, but it disappoints me that they didn't make CC open source and that they insist on tying subscription use to CC.
1. The main page asks for an email to be notified when the hoodie is available to buy, but I can add the goodie to my shopping cart and proceed to check out
2. The product page mentions a 6’ model but there is no model in the images
3. The check out page says “there are no payment options, please contact us”
I setup the LiveSync plugin in an LXC on one of my proxmox servers, since I was going to have to host the MCP server too (so Claude could read from it).
It doesn't require iCloud/GDrive, I just exposed the corresponding port through a cloudflare tunnel and set up the apps to connect through it.
I think this is a direct result of OpenAI and Anthropic humanizing these models too much.
I want C-3PO by my side helping me work, not a machine acting emotional.
But that’s what they’ve given us, and now a huge fraction of the username treats these tools like a human.
reply