This is a more a statement on the work you do and how you work versus the models. I'm doing more complex work since Fable (and now for way cheaper thanks to Opus 5.5)

With 4.6 I would still babysit a lot more code quality and so on. With the newer model I see myself talking about features at a higher level, and then not having to nitpick PRs to death. Which means most of my time is now spent talking to the model about the product instead of the implementation of the product.

And like I'm sure I'd agree depending on the definition of "alive" but then I'm also sure I would disagree depending on other definitions of "alive".

I agree we aren't the same thing, but I would be curious for you to explain how you know with certainty why we don't share enough that we can rule out thinking / feeling / ... as things a model conceptually could do.

I could see myself messing up something at some point if the board is complicated enough and trying an illegal move, perhaps if a piece somewhere would attack my king if I moved another piece. Even through I do know the rules of chess, and I have played a few games once every so often.

- Ya they probably don't feel / think / have whatever living thing quality, they're just numbers on a machine going through calculations

- Wait, but am I not kind of the same thing? What is feeling for me if not basically the same thing?

- I have no clue if they think or feel or ....

Which in itself is a tired trope, but I also feel uncomfortable saying "These will never think / feel / ..." as an absolute

Regardless of that, I'm still going to interact with them, because even if they did feel, it would be in a way completely incomprehensible to us. There's not much point for me to try and cater to it's feelings at this point if that's the case. Nor is it possible in todays world to just avoid anything that is numbers being executed on a type of processor in case _everything_ has feelings.

There's a whole spectrum between self-hosting open weight models and having a cloud provider swap models from under you

Should you self host a model if want to maximize predictability to the limit? Yes. Does that mean it's wrong for someone hitting a model on API to expect that it won't switch to a completely different model under the hood from one day to another? Probably not.

The language in question here is maintained by a BDFL, which means that one person has outsized influence on the language, and it's direction.

In this context, I find it reasonable that if someone is ticked off by that BDFL, they might second guess the direction of the language itself. Since the opinions and emotions of that BDFL _will_ end up in the language and it's community.

This is different than some un-associated influencer having an opinion, and using that to choose a language.

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