Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

cursor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 238 posts

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#111

Post by yorwba »

romanovcode wrote: post #86
memoryleakgame wrote: post #33

If these benches from their site hold up (they likely wont) Wouldn't this compress ai revenue like 15x quickly If they really have a 4.7 opus high equivalent at 1/16 the cost wouldn't this significantly effect all the current capex and planing Maybe they are getting elon to cover cost

The problem with this is that we do not know the actual cost. For all we know they might be pulling an Anthropic. Subsidizing costs to get users, then increasing them later on.

They're offering a model based on Kimi K2.5 for $0.50/M input and $2.50/M output while the cheapest third-party provider on OpenRouter charges $0.40/M input and $1.90/M output https://openrouter.ai/moonshotai/kimi-k2.5 Those third-party providers have little incentive to subsidize their customers, so Cursor probably has a margin >20% on their inference cost.

The real money furnace is the training, not just of models that get released, but also experimental training runs that fail to move benchmarks and are quietly thrown away. E.g. Cursor claim that 85% of the compute for Composer 2.5 comes from additional training on top of Kimi K2.5, where I'm not sure how they determined that, but it can't have been cheap. Then they say "Together with SpaceXAI, we're training a significantly larger model from scratch, using 10x more total compute."

So yes, they're probably attempting to replicate the Anthropic playbook of paying a large upfront cost for a very good model, and then rapidly acquiring paying customers, hoping that the inference margin will be enough to cover the training cost.

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#112

Post by animuchan »

rubyn00bie wrote: post #77
goyozi wrote: post #62

I kind of want to try it, to see if and how far they can take an open model and improve it but I really don’t miss the Cursor user experience. Constant UI changes, half-baked features, smaller and smaller limits, useless AI change attribution; I think I’ll wait for others to report if it’s any good.

Damn do I feel the UI changes being a pain point. It’s a near constant regression in my workflows. “Multiple agents” got destroyed recently, and the new interface for it some sort of command isn’t as good or reliable. Then you’ve got modals everywhere[1] and truncated bits (like long branch names) that make it insanely frustrating to use. They’re constantly changing the UI without actually improving it at all. I’ll l…

> Truly feels like the UI/UX is done by people

To me it feels like it's done entirely by an LLM, starting from the product vision.

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#115

Post by Kiro »

arcanemachiner wrote: post #83
uxcolumbo wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Been a bit out of the loop. What's wrong with using very short sentences like 'That's not X. That's Y.'?

Commonly used phrase by LLMs. Gives people slop vibes these days.

"It's not X, it's Y" is a good way to illustrate a point. Same goes for many other common LLM phrases. It's used because it's effective.

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#116

Post by ttouch »

goyozi wrote: post #62

I kind of want to try it, to see if and how far they can take an open model and improve it but I really don’t miss the Cursor user experience. Constant UI changes, half-baked features, smaller and smaller limits, useless AI change attribution; I think I’ll wait for others to report if it’s any good.

you can use either the cursor cli and/or zed editor with cursor as the underlying provider with ACP (agent context protocol)

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#117

Post by trymas »

howdareme9 wrote: post #91
throwaw12 wrote: post #78

> Composer 2.5 is built on the same open-source checkpoint as Composer 2, Moonshot's Kimi K2.5. Really nice to see they're giving credit to the company and I am optimistic Kimi K open models soon will outperform Opus models

Only because last time they tried to hide it lol

Yes and if I remember the drama correctly - Kimi's license or terms of use says that for commercial use cases (or was it user count?) - you must declare credit to Moonshot and Kimi.

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#118

Post by luodaint »

Benchmarks measure turn-level capabilities: you feed a task into the system and then grade the result. Capability for production-level usage concerns session-level decision making: does the agent know when to stop editing, retain the right amount of context, or go back and reread the file if the state has changed?

This is not a property of the model, but a property of the discipline; it can be operationalized by what you have documented before the session begins. Without "stop editing where you can no longer follow your changes to the spec" and "go back and read the migration file before changing the schema," there is nothing to halt the process until it fails integration.

Those teams who get consistent results independent of the model being used typically do so because they have operationalized their discipline first. Those switching out models monthly tend to expect the model to supply them.

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#119

Post by Lennie »

trymas wrote: post #117
howdareme9 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only because last time they tried to hide it lol

Yes and if I remember the drama correctly - Kimi's license or terms of use says that for commercial use cases (or was it user count?) - you must declare credit to Moonshot and Kimi.

It's important to mention: they were compliant, because they trained the model at an AI hosting provider that had a partnership with Moonshot AI, but Moonshot didn't know Cursor was a customer.

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#120

Post by maxdo »

trymas wrote: post #117
howdareme9 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only because last time they tried to hide it lol

Yes and if I remember the drama correctly - Kimi's license or terms of use says that for commercial use cases (or was it user count?) - you must declare credit to Moonshot and Kimi.

How can distilled opus become better than original? There are numbers of reports including anthropic that kimi team was participating in fraudulent activities
Post reply on HN