ShityApp

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.

Donde no se ponía el sol.

Alex Karp just described how America identifies its most valuable minds and systematically filters them out. The system isn’t broken. It’s performing exactly as designed. Built to produce compliant industrial labor for an economy that no longer exists. The factories closed. The compliance engine never did. Karp: “All of our tests are built around things that were valuable in the Industrial Revolution.” Every test. Every metric. Every benchmark. Calibrated to measure one thing. Obedience. Not cognition. Not creativity. Not the ability to build something from nothing. The ability to sit still and repeat what you’re told. The minds the system punishes hardest are the ones the future needs most. Karp: “Everybody who can’t sit or needs to build or wants to build have to go into a separate slot.” The neurodivergent. The dyslexic. The kid who can’t stop moving but can reverse-engineer anything they touch. The system doesn’t overlook them. It identifies them, labels them defective, and routes them out. That’s not a failure of detection. That’s the detection working perfectly. The system locates its biggest threats and neutralizes them before they ever reach a launchpad. Karp: “Vocational training in Germany is very technical. The people building the cars at BMW or even in the French version Airbus, very complicated jobs, they didn’t go to college. They went to a very, very high-end high school. And they come out without any debt.” Germany routes elite technical talent straight into building jet engines and precision machinery. No university. No debt. Immediate sovereign output. America runs that same talent through four years of institutional processing and hands them a credential, six figures of debt, and a skill set an LLM absorbs before the decade ends. One system builds. The other processes. And processing is not building. Karp: “We should have gotten you before you got turned down at Goldman and said this is a waste of your time. You could be building something important.” Instead of handing builders something real, the system funnels them toward desk jobs they’ll be rejected from anyway. Then asks why nothing gets built. The AI race won’t be decided by credentials on a wall. It’ll be decided by one question. Which nation found its builders before the system finished converting them into something replaceable? Because the system doesn’t miss them by accident. It finds them first. Then it eliminates them. That’s not a flaw in the design. That is the design. But here’s what it never accounted for. The builders it discards are the only ones who can build what replaces it.

Actually I have seen a version of this guy in Argentina and Spain too

Cuando llamas en vez de el ring suena “Buenas noches señora” hasta que te respondan.

NEW: Anthropic claims the capability cited by the U.S. in restricting Fable 5 is already widely available from other models, including OpenAI’s GPT-5.5.