61–70 of 538 posts
Anthropic already banned xAI for very similar ToS violations earlier this year: https://x.com/kyliebytes/status/2009686466746822731?s=46 So this is OpenAI following suit after Musk admitted to distilling their models. This was bound to happen once Cursor decided to sell itself to a competing model provider. It'll be interesting to see if Anthropic applies their ban to Cursor, or if that datacenter deal they signed wi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.harness-bench.ai/leaderboard.html This provides a method, but the data looks stale and perhaps a bit thin compared to say, Cursor, or even AntiGravity data.
never heard of nanobot. how reliable is this benchmark?
It has been more of an OpenClaw or Hermes alternative than a coding agent like OpenCode or Pi, so it’s likely to do well given less context bloat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they are betting that Astra will be impossible to ignore.
I'd need to have a problem I couldn't solve with current models for my eyes to wander.
Anthropic already banned xAI for very similar ToS violations earlier this year: https://x.com/kyliebytes/status/2009686466746822731?s=46 So this is OpenAI following suit after Musk admitted to distilling their models. This was bound to happen once Cursor decided to sell itself to a competing model provider. It'll be interesting to see if Anthropic applies their ban to Cursor, or if that datacenter deal they signed wi…
>Musk admitted to distilling their models. what's the moat for AI labs like OpenAI and Antrhopic as they seek trillion IPOs. a lot of people said Chinese models also distill US LLM models. if it is this easy to do. how do US AI labs justify asking for trillion?
Otherwise, it will be competitors distilling, and the government getting upset.
It's hard for me to see a different future.
And, this really sucks.
If this thesis is true, I wonder what the final YC batch number might be.
Spend a lot of time thinking about why individuals shouldn't trust large AI cos, now it's interesting getting to think about how the AI companies themselves don't trust each other. Capitalism is viciously cold and uncaring.
It's always been clear to me that Cursor's business model of reselling others' APIs had its days numbered. Not necessarily because the providers would pull the plug, but because you wouldn't be able to compete with subsidized plans. Cursor is already kind of useless for third party models unless you're willing to spend thousands of dollars. It's only worth it if you're going to use mostly grok/composer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sam and Elon have a long standing feud. This is more than just bad blood between companies.
Still, where's the legalese? I'd expect something like this on an individual's blog, not a company's.
https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/921546/e...
My guess is that OpenAI now has a full blown Cursor equivalent in development (an expansion of Codex?) and will announce it in September. Otherwise it stands to lose those who are used to working with Cursor.
Spend a lot of time thinking about why individuals shouldn't trust large AI cos, now it's interesting getting to think about how the AI companies themselves don't trust each other. Capitalism is viciously cold and uncaring.
At least capitalism isn't at the center of the most impactful technological revolution in human history.
this is a pretty clean test of whether people were buying cursor or just using it for convenient access to whichever model was flavor of the week. i work in qa so i'm naturally wary of adding another critical dependency to a development workflow, if the model you actually want can just disappear because two vendor change ownership or start argueing then the wrapper has to be really good on its own. cursors harness an…