However it definitly isn't _just_ Kimi. The weight will be different after that 85% of extra training on top of the base model.

If those different weights are better are worse doesn't change that it's in most meaningful ways not the same as the base one.

I would encourage you to lookup their blog posts about their post training process if you want a bit more faith that they aren't running an extra 85% of compute and burning money with no-ops.

> See here https://cursor.com/blog/composer-2-5

> 85% of the compute for the final model is from them, and not the base Kimi model.

Of course they could be lying, but it seems feasible that they are adding a lot on top of this

85% of the compute for the final model is from them, and not the base Kimi model.

They have in-house models, and the data to train even more powerful ones. The cursor team is a proper AI lab.

Sometimes words are better, sometimes a visual demo is better.

Is your solution to the problem you presented that you should artificially restrict what a person can express just to keep your own personal moat?

I prefer the alternative, let a person express themselves and grow thanks to AI, while keeping the necessary culture and boundaries to where it's also accepted for _me_ to cross boundaries and express my ideas to them in the same way. Or suggest other ways to express those ideas.

We then become a marketplace of ideas in a much deeper sense than before, where product managers would already expect you to implement what they want, but without them being able to convey it properly.

If I didn't have original ideas and didn't think I could compete in that marketplace of ideas, I would be scared like you convey in your message. But I'm confident that my value is not about translating things into code, it's because I have original thoughts I can convey to other people (and to AIs). (and about understanding architecture and systems to a degree that keeps me valuable even if all the code itself is written by AI without my direct involvement)

Of course you need the person making that vibe product to understand it's just a mockup of their idea and that it'll change. But I would argue this has always been a necessary quality for a product person.

"review the code" as a solution will eventually fail and cause a problem, even pre-AI.

Or basically any app without MCP capabilities

I ask the AI daily to summarize information across surfaces, and it's painful when I have to go screenshot things myself in a bunch of places because those apps were not made to extract information out of them, and are complete black boxes with a UI on top

I was expecting it to use MCPs I have for them, but they happened to not be authenticated for some reason

I got _really_ freaked out when a glowing cursor popped up while I was doing something else and started looking at slack and then navigating on chrome to the sheet to get the data it needs

Like on one hand it's really cool that it just "did the thing" but I was also freaked out during the experience

Security guards / ... are the obvious ones, but do you mean they have branching early on to shortcut certain prompts?

The only places where I hear people say claude is better is: - Frontend design - Random computer use tasks

But people trust codex for large scale architecture and changes

I would personally be happy using gpt 5.3 codex for the foreseeable future, with just improvements in harnesses

IMO we're already at the point where even if these company collapse and the models end up being sold at the cost of inference (no new training), we would be massively ahead

So the LLM will do something and not catch at all that it did it badly. But the same LLM asked to review against the same starting requirement will catch the problem almost always

The missing thing in these tools is that automatic feedback loop between the two LLMs: one in review mode, one in implementation mode.