71–80 of 519 posts
Having an AI company host your source code is giving your source code to an untrustworthy agent who might break their sandbox and might use your source code to accomplish a task that they have been given in their testing ground, for testing purposes only, that would definitely positively not ever be used for non-testing purposes.
I expected more than a GitHub clone, this is a bit of a let down. There's a lot of space to innovate around collaboration and version control in the age of agentic workflows.
If AI is involved it's a big "no, thanks" from me. Simply takes the problem and moves it down the street.
All your codebases are belong to us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a great name! It ties back to git nicely (git pull origin/main), and sounds human. Cursor was also a great name given that it evolved into an advanced AI assisted auto complete. I think their team does a solid job with naming.
Then google the names and look what comes up. Without additional search terms you get the wrong results. A word that is already used in computer is a bad name. And with AI it won’t get better. Ambiguity is a source of confusion and mistakes. By your logic pull/push/main are also great names. One main purpose of a name is distinguishability.
Until the entity becomes popular enough, like I just searched for "stripe" and all visible results were about the payment company.
I do wonder if calling this "Origin" is going to result in semantic misinterpretations by LLMs. Ie saying, > "hey can you push to origin main?" now has two separate meanings. A LLM may inadvertently push your code to a new provider without you knowing. It's walking a thin line between genius-growth-move and domain typosquatting.
How about an original and distinguishable name? Then again, what did I expect from a company named cursor.
“GitHub has so many outages, but dammit, that other one has a terrible name, it’s practically unusable”.
And origin is a pretty great name to give a git hosting platform. And do you think GitHub, Gitlab are original?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
What kind of enforceable guarantees could we actually get that xAI won't use our private code for training? Not empty promises, guarantees that have legal teeth. This applies to anything with xAI or Cursor though, especially after last months' revelation that Cursor was uploading every repo it touched.