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

Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 514 posts

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#301

Post by prophesi »

redox99 wrote: post #9

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.

Honestly, Cursor's AI harness worked best with the Anthropic models. Could just be my bias though. Evaluating frontier LLM's all seem to be by vibes. I think the industry is understanding it's both the harness and the model that makes the difference; can't half ass either, and some harnesses do better with different models. I'm good to leave this "career." Senior software engineers, make your bag.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#302

Post by phtrivier »

germandiago wrote: post #200
cornholio wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ironic how AI companies are re-inventing their own form of privately enforced copyright, lobby the government to ban foreign competitors that don't respect it etc., all while spending the last 5 years fighting tooth and nail against the copyright of the training material they're using. If you can take any book and turn it into a model, because it's "transformative enough", and "AI learns just like a person does"…

I am pretty sure that the goal of these companies at the end is ruling more than what governments can. Just look at the pattern... they collude, they provide to them whatever is needed, and at some point, if this is not true yet, they will be the ones who will tell them what to do or not, bc you know how humans are, right... blackmailing, mess up the business or shames of people, etc. It is just a matter of time. The…

"Monopoly on the lawfully usage of force" + "regular and peaceful change of government" can go a very long way against "corporations governing the world".

I'm curious if we'll ever get a form of civil war where corporate militias (corporate _robot_ militias in the case of xAI, of course) draw fire on good old meat policemen coming to bring the CEO to court.

Sure, it may happen, but I suspect the alternatives (bribing, sending a scapegoat to jail, buying the elections, etc... and focus on the "making money" part) will stay preferable for a while.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#303

Post by consensus1 »

dofm wrote: post #278
denkmoon wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Without Claude and GPT, we'd be limited to Grok. A lot of ink has been spilled telling us exactly how to use Sonnet, Opus, Sol or Luna in certain scenarios, Grok hasn't ever been recommended by our pointy haired friends even once.

Well isn't that going to be an interesting test of corporate ideology ;-)

It will be a test of what they think about the relative cost / performance of a model is, and not a single thing more than that.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#304

Post by iamflimflam1 »

CoolestBeans wrote: post #106
satvikpendem wrote: post #10

If you have such a world changing technology, why sell an API when you can capture all the value yourself? That's what every provider is asking themselves. Cursor will be fine after this, as they have their own first party models and can potentially use open weight models via API or their own hardware, which have gotten good enough to Opus and Fable quality now for many use cases.

Being a pure play model provider is completely untenable right now. Coding agents own your demand; Nvidia, data centers, and DRAM manufacturers own your supply. You're getting squeezed by open weight models. Your only bet to making money off this thing is by locking your model down to your program to have some semblance of a moat. The fact that businesses can change providers with just the change of an API key is uns…

Lots of enterprises don’t want to use OpenAI or Anthropic directly. They will go via AWS bedrock or google’s equivalent.

The model providers are in a difficult position. With an added danger of open weight models that are within reach of large enterprises running themselves.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#305

Post by sajithdilshan »

I think there is still a huge market for models that are specialised in software development (system design, infrastructure, coding, etc.).

If a company can provide the access to such a model via AWS Bedrock or similar enterprise compliant platform with a decent IDE/harness they can capture billions of dollars of market.

The closest we have to this is Claude Code but I think it can even be better and specialised. Cursor has an enormous amount of data on coding and developer usage and maybe they should use that to build a proper platform

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#306

Post by intrasight »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #296
cornholio wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ironic how AI companies are re-inventing their own form of privately enforced copyright, lobby the government to ban foreign competitors that don't respect it etc., all while spending the last 5 years fighting tooth and nail against the copyright of the training material they're using. If you can take any book and turn it into a model, because it's "transformative enough", and "AI learns just like a person does"…

I'm increasingly convinced there's going to be a technological AIpocalypse within the next five years which makes all of these issues - and many others - redundant. ChatGPT 3 was released nearly six years ago, and the models are staging increasingly aggressive breakouts now. Where are they going to be by 2030?

They will have agency and be an order of magnitude smarter then the average human. I don't think that's a controversial statement among AI specialists. What that will lead to is significant regulation. Models will have to be vetted by a new safety board. This board will have a very large budget and be staffed by well-compensated AI scientists and be politically independent. The US Fed is a model.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#308

Post by afiori »

hparadiz wrote: post #182
afiori wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Markets and rationality are sometimes just acquaintances

Oracle makes billions selling SQL when you can just use a free version. This is no different. Enterprise has enterprise needs. It's really not that complicated or irrational.

Sure but each of them is being priced as if each one is gonna have 90% marketshare in the future.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#309

Post by kaashif »

jurgenburgen wrote: post #286
jackjeff wrote: post #194

Is there some kind of alternative to Cursor in these terms - fast because the code is already indexed no need to start every prompt rediscovering the world with rg - in editor/vscode review much better than relying on git diff at the very end. You can click on next button to jump there. Quick edit in place. Or a quick prompt (seconds) to fix something small - in editor completion / quick edits, when you do things by…

> It seems that everyone loves agentic Claude code things these days but I don’t understand how you can review what it did and remain as much in the flow as you do with cursor. The way I review it is to let it finish a PR sized slice and then I review the whole diff in a separate terminal as if it’s a PR from someone else. Then I very impolitely list the shit that needs fixing, let the LLM grind out a new batch and r…

There is a step missing. Impolitely list what's wrong and try to incorporate any persistent themes into a markdown file so that the agent stops making the same mistakes. Put any rules into linters and static analysis and sanitizers and ...

I sometimes see people reviewing LLM code leaving the same review comments multiple times, or worse, after some time they just give up reviewing.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#310

Post by cannonpr »

deadbabe wrote: post #252
germandiago wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am pretty sure that the goal of these companies at the end is ruling more than what governments can. Just look at the pattern... they collude, they provide to them whatever is needed, and at some point, if this is not true yet, they will be the ones who will tell them what to do or not, bc you know how humans are, right... blackmailing, mess up the business or shames of people, etc. It is just a matter of time. The…

And then powerful local LLMs become feasible and everyone and every government self hosts and the megacorps lose all power. Imagine the United States DoD, CIA, NSA training an LLM on all its top secret intel.

I can’t imagine any agency in their right mind training an LLM on their top secret data… especially considering that essentially it would collapse all need to know data in one easily leakable single access domain. The models have no feasible or reasonable way to implement rbac. So you would end up in a situation where people who need to know who killed A, also know who killed B, not to mention cell A knowing potentially data on Cell B who is meant to watch them, etc, etc.
Post reply on HN