Live data from Hacker News

Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

openai.com

361–370 of 522 posts

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#361

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.

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.

What was the intent of the original ai companies (anthropic, OpenAI, etc) when they mass-distilled the entire internet to create their training data set?

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#362
post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how can you be on HN and not have some idea about the xAI-Anthropic compute contract Some of us are still employed mate

> and authoritatively mouthing off This was pretty pertinent to the meaning of that line, brother.

That escaped my notice, because nothing on the internet is "authoritative", doubly so on social media. I thought you were just being dramatic.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#363

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…

"I am pretty sure" .... CONSPIRACY THEORY. Stop willing worst case scenarios and take your meds.

This kind of comment is not helpful. The prediction has predated the discussion since at least Space Merchants (1953)

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#364

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…

"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…

I'm rooting for them vs them.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#366
post #262
post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies are well within their rights to choose who they sell to. I don't see how this is 'privately enforced copyright'. Also, copyright has always been privately enforced anyway?

On the one hand, yes; on the other hand, so much of the training data comes from scraping the web that it feels wrong for them to do what they deny others the right to do. On the third hand, the settlement Anthropic famously had to pay was for copyright infringement because they didn't actually have the right to even access some of the training data they used, so I can see how this might be compatible with the law. O…

Robots don't even have four hands.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#367
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, any Cursor sub includes a separate tier of usage for Cursor/SpaceX first party models separate from usage of third party models.

I have a $20 Cursor sub still personally and would say that the usage for Grok models is much higher than what $20 gets you with Anthropic. I can't speak for the $100 plan but I would assume it scales similarly.

I rarely run out of my usage monthly even with the $20 plan.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#369

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…

Vs code copilot is the same or better than cursor in my opinion - I mean that's where cursor comes from

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yep, if you’re not building guardrails, using an LLM is effectively just gambling until you get a non-broken output.
Post reply on HN