JP Hwang

anyone talking about their custom setups to make ai more effective isn't doing anything useful coding used to be manual labor. typing the code out, doing large changes, jumping between files. a fancy, bespoke setup could make a difference but it's not like that anymore, you have a magic box you can say stuff into and things happen people haven't understood this, they're still spending their energy tinkering with what's behind the box. the underlying tone is always frustration. they're clearly not happy and maybe even on a burn out path the best people at this are doing the best work of their life all while happier than ever they could do this even on a vanilla setup the box can already do amazing things. it can even produce the best code of your life. it's limited entirely by the person using it and their creativity and their ambition and you're not gonna get that in a skill file

Some observations on Kimi: 1. It's a very good model! I don't think its performance can be explained away by distillation or anything like that. In agentic coding sessions, it seems pretty much on par with the best public models of Q1 2026. In my fairly limited use, it also seemed very token hungry. It's not obvious to me that this model is actually that cheap to run. 2. I am personally surprised the Chinese state continues to allow the open sourcing of models this good, given potential risks. To be clear, I *myself* might be fine with models presenting this level of marginal risk being open weight, but I am surprised that China is fine with it. I suspect the reason they are is 75% explained by strategic blindness/lack of AGI-pilledness (the CCP is very Yann Lecun-y in its views of AI). The other 25% or so is their lack of compute for customer inference (making China's open-weight strategy an unintended byproduct of US export controls) and the normal Chinese strategy of aggressive exports. For the companies, as opposed to the government, the decision to open source is partially ideological and partially because they are behind, and they know that very few people would pay for sub-frontier models from China. 3. Open-weight models are inherently decelerationist, and I'm continually surprised to see the so-called "accelerationists" so excited about open-weight models. I suspect the reason they are is that they know open-weight models are effectively ungovernable, and they simply like the overall cloak of ungovernability open-weight models create over the whole of AI. It's not a bad strategy; it reminds me of James Scott's recounting of the hill people in "the art of not being governed." Still, in the end, open-weight models deter further AI capex. 4. One probable outcome of an open-weight-model-dominant world is full AI communism, which is precisely what China proposes: rather than a market product, AI is a "public good" which will ultimately be provided by the state as a kind of "digital public infrastructure." This future strikes me as a dystopian hellscape, but I've never met an open-weight models advocate who doesn't ultimately concede this is where things end. You'd be surprised how many 'accelerationists' lobbied me, while I was in government, to support an eleven or twelve-figure federally funded data center so that startups could train models at a subsidy and then give them away for free. There was no other way for AI to progress, they said. Perhaps this is the logical end state of things. Nonetheless, I find myself surprised to see supposed accelerationists excited about such an outcome. I think many of them just don't know what they're doing. Many accelerationists do not view the creation and serving of frontier models as a legitimate business. 5. I would guess that the Trump Administration will at some point realize that their best strategy here would be to create large amounts of regulatory risk around the use of open-weight Chinese models. You don't need to "ban open source" (one of the dumber motifs of AI policy discussion). You just need to direct every agency to issue soft law that creates FUD. "A Federal Reserve Advisory Bulletin found that there may be backdoors in Chinese AI models." It needn't be that well justified. You just create enough regulatory risk that every regulated enterprise backs off. You probably don't want to create so much regulatory risk that you scare off the hyperscalers from serving Chinese models; this will just drive startups to sketchier providers. There's a happy middle ground here. I'd assume they will do some version of this. 6. It's probably true that open-weight models of this capability make the world a bit more dangerous, but not so much more that you'll really notice. At some point the models will be capable enough that you will notice. "A nonliving, invisible, dangerous, and infinitely self-replicating agent escaped from a Chinese lab," you say? Color me shocked.

We care deeply about your privacy and respect customer choice. For teams using zero data retention, no trace and code data is ever retained. All API key use of Grok Build also respects ZDR. If ZDR is disabled, the /privacy command is available in the CLI to disable data retention, which also deletes previously synced data. Run the /privacy command to view or change your settings at any time.

I just declared a moratorium against AI-written change descriptions (e.g. PR and commit messages, also issues/tickets) from my team. AI was writing change descriptions that were worse than useless to me as I tried to review PRs: outlining details of the code that could easily be seen by looking at the code, but omitting the higher-level framing needed to understand broadly what the code is doing. I think people like having AI write these things because the output looks structured and thorough, which makes it feel professional in a way. But this isn't actually valuable. Concise, high-level descriptions are better for everyone. If I need to use my own AI to interpret what your AI wrote then something is wrong. Let AI write code, sure, but for the description, I'd rather see your prompt than your output. We could maybe have extended agents.md with guidelines on writing descriptions, but this seemed a bit pointless since a good, concise change description only takes a few minutes to write -- not a significant time savings to delegate to AI. At least, it doesn't take long if you understand the code -- and if you don't understand the code, then I'm definitely not merging it.

It’s shocking to me that LLMs didn’t create an educational renaissance. Shouldn’t I be able to learn a language in a month? What did we get wrong?