51–60 of 519 posts
Hi all, my name is Tomas. I am one of the developers on Origin, and I was one of the founders of Graphite ( https://graphite.com ). Happy to answer any questions about Origin or source control in general!
Are you interested in integrating with more CI platforms, including less "traditional" ones, like dagger.io? If so I would love to talk :)
Hi all, my name is Tomas. I am one of the developers on Origin, and I was one of the founders of Graphite ( https://graphite.com ). Happy to answer any questions about Origin or source control in general!
What I don't understand from the blog post is what's different in this offering than github - is it just the agentic tie ins where I can ask my agent to make changes while browsing the PR? Are there any fundamental differences, ie ways of working that solve the worktrees problem?
We wanted to release a beta so people could start experimenting with our scalability and extensibility themselves. Over the next few weeks, you can expect a handful of features starting to change source control to better understand and work with agents.
The main limitation right now is that to share the code with anyone outside your Cursor organization, you need to sync it with GitHub.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All AI companies are valued as if they'll win the AI race. Problem is, only one can win * * That is, if a lab like Deepseek doesn't release a "good enough" model for the cost of electricity + a thin margin. Then all AI company lose and all consumers win.
What does it even mean to "win the AI race" ? Right now there are many providers providing different tradeoffs, for different usages. Would "winning" mean releasing an all-purpose better model that will outperform every other companies for all kind of tasks ? Something like AGI but cost effective ? Or is it winning the consumer-side AI race ? Like making a kind of "super personal AI assistant" the likes you would see…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does it even mean to "win the AI race" ? Right now there are many providers providing different tradeoffs, for different usages. Would "winning" mean releasing an all-purpose better model that will outperform every other companies for all kind of tasks ? Something like AGI but cost effective ? Or is it winning the consumer-side AI race ? Like making a kind of "super personal AI assistant" the likes you would see…
I think "winning" means being able to live up to their valuations. The market is not big enough for all of these companies to be worth as much as they claim. In that sense they must "win" or experience massive downward adjustment in their values.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think "winning" means being able to live up to their valuations. The market is not big enough for all of these companies to be worth as much as they claim. In that sense they must "win" or experience massive downward adjustment in their values.
So “winning” could mean everyone experiences massive downward adjustment, but your valuation is still highest?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All AI companies are valued as if they'll win the AI race. Problem is, only one can win * * That is, if a lab like Deepseek doesn't release a "good enough" model for the cost of electricity + a thin margin. Then all AI company lose and all consumers win.
What does it even mean to "win the AI race" ? Right now there are many providers providing different tradeoffs, for different usages. Would "winning" mean releasing an all-purpose better model that will outperform every other companies for all kind of tasks ? Something like AGI but cost effective ? Or is it winning the consumer-side AI race ? Like making a kind of "super personal AI assistant" the likes you would see…