frde_me

> I have not been doing increasingly complex things since Opus 4.6 when models got really good.

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.

I just want to note how you expressed your own feeling about the subject "these things are not alive", but without pointing to anything concrete explaining the theory you have behind this

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".

> You’re not just the same thing though

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 wonder if I would do better as a human, maybe? Or would I happen to have one move in 1500+ that's not valid?

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.

It's always interesting since my train of thought always goes down:

- 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.

It's not that you're a d*, it's just that you lack any kind of nuance

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.

Knowing how to break into someone else's network will make you a lot better at making your own network secure.

> what semi-celebrity they like the most

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.

That's something for us and benchmarks to decide

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.

Calling it an IDE is under-representing cursor

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

I can understand words, but having more diverse medias for communication lets a person express strictly more than before.

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)

I honestly much prefer this to the old way where the only mode of communication was speech or text. I now often understand a lot more holistically what the person coming with their product wants with just a demo + a conversation.

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.

I'm guessing the parent is wondering why this is noteworthy enough to be posted and discussed in this thread, and so if there's context they are missing