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

371–380 of 521 posts

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#371

Post by whamlastxmas »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #218

This seems like a no brainer, not sure how Cursor would expect to be trusted by any other company now that they’re owned by SpaceX.

I trust them more than someone who took a nonprofit designed to be open and had tens of millions in donations to do just that, and then turned into a for profit who's cuddled up tight with Microsoft and is so closed they're preemptively ending contracts with someone under pretty flimsy accusations. And doubly funny it's the person who's responsible for them even existing. And from whom they stole tens of millions

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#372

Post by Synthetic7346 »

ralusek wrote: post #60
iJohnDoe wrote: post #35

I guess I’m on the right track. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49428835 If Claude pulls away from Cursor as well then Cursor is basically done.

Cursor is like one of the least economical ways to use Claude and OpenAI, virtually nobody does it. You use Cursor for their autocomplete/composer + grok. For using Claude and Codex, you get immeasurably more bang for your buck just using them directly.

Not in enterprise

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#373

Post by neya »

armcat wrote: post #138
neya wrote: post #130

We are making this choice because we cannot be confident that SpaceX will use our technology within our terms of service, based on our experience with Elon Musk's companies violating contracts. The pot calling the kettle black. Look who's talking. A company that trained it's models illegally on so many copyrighted materials without compensating anyone involved. For a company named "Open" AI, they've been hardly open…

Codex cli is open source rust project (Claude Code is not). Whisper is an open weight ASR/STT model. GPT-OSS is an open weight LLM that can run locally and is still very capable. CLIP is an open source model used for image encoding. Just some of the open contributions from OpenAI

All these were released way late for a company called "Open" AI. But go on, keep defending the billion dollar corporation.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#374

Post by neya »

inigyou wrote: post #148
neya wrote: post #130

We are making this choice because we cannot be confident that SpaceX will use our technology within our terms of service, based on our experience with Elon Musk's companies violating contracts. The pot calling the kettle black. Look who's talking. A company that trained it's models illegally on so many copyrighted materials without compensating anyone involved. For a company named "Open" AI, they've been hardly open…

Correct. It's killing the competition. Which is what you should do if you want to run a successful business.

Then don't be pretentious and frame it as a morality statement. Just call it what it is.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#376

Post by epolanski »

denkmoon wrote: post #255
rgbrenner wrote: post #32

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…

God I hope so. My workplace enforces Cursor use, and to see it lose GPT and Claude would absolutely make my day. Much has been invested in getting us to "use the right models", a list in which Grok does not feature.

Grok 4.5 and 4.6 are very good coding models. Also quite fast.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#377

Post by jubilanti »

cannonpr wrote: post #310
deadbabe wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 potentia…

> 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

Oh my sweet summer child...

This has been the continual goal of the US defense and intelligence agencies since 9/11, which was blamed on a lack of information sharing. Why do you think Edward Snowden had access to everything? Because it was consolidated post-2001.

You think there is any access control at the upper levels of the dark intelligence agencies? They have access to the whole take.

And it used to be that was pretty useless unless you had an actual lead. You'd need a East German Stasi level of labor to read everyone's secrets at scale... Now you don't, thanks to AI.

https://enwp.org/Total_Information_Awareness

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#378

Post by trollbridge »

foxglacier wrote: post #342
trollbridge wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes - yours is just some optional text nobody reads or understands and is probably not legally required to adhere to. Theirs is a contract signed by their customer who they know did understand it.

Interesting. So what makes theirs not “optional text nobody reads or understands”?

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#379

Post by audunw »

jackjeff wrote: post #300
aws_ls wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I code using Codex or sometimes ClaudeCode. I use Zed to review the code. CLI is great for most things. Some times, when I am reviewing a PR, I just tell Codex to do a diff between source and target branches in PR, and generate a HTML report. Then I read that, and also review relevant pieces of code in Zed. I tried using Cursor, many of my colleagues use it, but stopped using it due to clunkiness. And of late, even i…

Thanks your your feedback. I just retried Zed and yeah, it's much much better than last time I gave it a shot!!! I turned on the review stuff, and yeah I can do more or less what I could in Cursor. Check something. Do a quick inline promtp for the three lines I dislike and move on. And of course the editor is so much nimbler/nicer. No plan mode, but for big edits I'd probably use codex or something just like you. If…

If you integrate Zed with Claude Code through ACP you get plan mode (and some other stuff like memory)

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#380

Post by trollbridge »

wlonkly wrote: post #343
trollbridge wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

L1 contracts class: offer, acceptance, and consideration.

The content of the site is subject to licence for making copies. So you’re saying licences don’t matter?

The GPL established this rather clearly. Copyright law doesn’t require consideration.

(The licence itself is a basic BSD licence, so it just requires attribution including in marketing materials, which obviously hasn’t happened.)

Post reply on HN