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

331–340 of 518 posts

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#331

Post by maipen »

hackernud3s wrote: post #81
hargup wrote: post #77

Bummed, but I guess for me, doesn't mean cursor subscription ending though. Grok is a pretty amazing model for the speed and price on Cursor.

Does Grok have a subscription that competes with Claude Max $100 plan (genuinely curious)

Yes it does. You can either subscribe to grok directly or cursor. You have many tiers and all of them have generous usage.

Grok is a workhorse, not the smartest yet, but produces good code and follows the plan. Grok 5, which has been training since beginnig of this year, will probably be a monster. (10T/6T Param model variants)

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#332

Post by maipen »

jimnotgym wrote: post #282

Can I suppose that Cursor, by seeing everyones prompts and all of the responses from the models, are in a position to sort of MITM distill them?

Unless you run your models and harness completely locally, you can't verify your data isn't being used.

All of these companies, and I truly mean all, stole data to train their models.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#334

Post by ACCount37 »

DonsDiscountGas wrote: post #273
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"…

> then surely a model distilling another model is transformative and fair use. Yes it is, in the legal/copyright sense of fair use. That's why they ban it in their TOS. Which customers agree to when signing up for the service.

So far, we have one ruling that says "model distillation by vendor A from vendor B with the intent to use the results to compete with vendor B in vendor B's domain is not fair use". Which makes a degree of sense.

It's possible that distillation for other reasons, with no intent to harm the vendor you distill from, would have been ruled to be fair use. But in law, intent matters.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#335

Post by addandsubtract »

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…

What's wrong with using VSCode with your model / API key of choice?

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#336

Post by trollbridge »

DonsDiscountGas wrote: post #273
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"…

> then surely a model distilling another model is transformative and fair use. Yes it is, in the legal/copyright sense of fair use. That's why they ban it in their TOS. Which customers agree to when signing up for the service.

My website’s TOS says not to use it to train AI without permission, yet my website is in the training set of all the big models.

So… my TOS doesn’t matter, but theirs does?

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#337

Post by trollbridge »

jimbob45 wrote: post #184
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"…

Are you willing to denounce each and every Chinese company for equal amounts of IP theft as well then?

Nope, because I think releasing open weights is far more important and realistic than ever expecting the big American AI labs to change how they do things.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#338

Post by trollbridge »

crote wrote: post #320
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> the models are staging increasingly aggressive breakouts No, the AI companies merely figured out a way to spin gross negligence into a PR win. Any idiot can build a Murderbot which "goes rogue" - it can be as simple as taping a knife to a Roomba. The harm it does is not in any way related to its "intelligence" or "sentience". We're seeing "breakouts" because the AI companies are being rewarded for their incompetenc…

These “breakouts” are simply marketing.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#339

Post by steve1977 »

david-gpu wrote: post #277
DonsDiscountGas wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then surely a model distilling another model is transformative and fair use. Yes it is, in the legal/copyright sense of fair use. That's why they ban it in their TOS. Which customers agree to when signing up for the service.

How long until books come with TOS, then?

Many of them do already and have for decades

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#340

Post by iamleppert »

pianopatrick wrote: post #70
ChannelFence wrote: post #51

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…

I use Cursor because I listened to YouTube interviews with the teams behind most of these products and I trusted their team the most.

How TF do you trust people you don’t know from YouTube interviews? You don’t know them. They are strangers to you trying to sell you something.
Post reply on HN