Hey friends,

We're watching software change faster than any of us expected. AI isn't a concept anymore. It's in your meetings, it's inside your documents, and it has context on things that used to live only in your mind.

When software listens to you, when it transcribes you, when it summarizes your thinking, trust can't just be a marketing claim.

That's why open source is not a nice-to-have. It's mandatory.

If an AI tool captures your voice, your discussions, your strategy, you should be able to see exactly what it does with that information. Not a PDF saying "we care about privacy." Not a privacy policy written by lawyers. Actual code.

Closed-source AI tools say "trust us." But you can't audit "trust us." You can't fork it, stress-test it, or guarantee your own compliance.

In the age of AI, blind trust is basically an attack vector.

Open source flips the power dynamic:

• You can verify claims instead of believing them.
• Security researchers can inspect, not speculate.
• Teams can self-host, extend, or fork when needed.
• The product outlives the company that built it.

That's why we built Hyprnote in the open.

We don't want you to trust us more. We want you to need to trust us less. If you can inspect it, run it locally, modify it, or audit it, the entire idea of trust changes.

This isn't ideology. It's durability.

Companies die. Pricing changes. Terms change. Acquisitions happen. Compliance requirements evolve.

Open source survives all of that.

What AI is capable of today demands a different contract between software and the people who rely on it. That contract should be inspectable, forkable, and owned by its users, not hidden behind opaque servers.

If AI ends up shaping how we work, think, and communicate, then the people using it deserve transparency—not promises.

With clarity,

John Jeong, Yujong Lee