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

411–420 of 520 posts

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#411

Post by summerman »

jubilanti wrote: post #377
cannonpr wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[dead]

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#412

Post by applicative »

cornholio wrote: post #167
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…

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"…

Has anyone tried to sue Deep Seek, Moonshot or Z.ai, which trained on identical material? Or maybe it’s cool when they do it?

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#413

Post by notatoad »

Timon3 wrote: post #341
phtrivier wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> "regular and peaceful change of government" This has already been broken, and they've become so much more bold since then.

The monopoly on the use of force has gotten kinda blurry as well these days. As long as people keep electing anti-government governments, the risk of technocracy is very real.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#414

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

WiSaGaN wrote: post #267
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"…

It's one of the things you need to do if you want your company to later become the only company in the world. They also promised that they would treat you nicely afterwards after they get what they want.

> become the only company in the world

This is not a necessary end state. It is the byproduct of the disease of sociopathic MBAs.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#415

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

dannyw wrote: post #186
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"…

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?

Unless you're selling cakes.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#416

Post by therealdrag0 »

yyhhsj0521 wrote: post #207
therealdrag0 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like Cursor. Honestly the biggest reason is the decent WYSIWYG markdown editor.

Isn't the markdown editor in Cursor just vanilla VS code?

Nope. VS renders in a separate tab but is not editable. There are a million plugins, but some are still not good or look sketch.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#417

Post by therealdrag0 »

946789987649 wrote: post #247
therealdrag0 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw that happen culturally. But never saw that much different in performance. And I really dislike terminal development. And their desktop app is really buggy.

Out of interest when did you last use the desktop app? I am a huge daily user of it and apart from very minimal bugs, it works perfectly for me. Wasn't always the case, so they've definitely made improvements

Maybe 3 months ago?

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#418

Post by cornholio »

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 what you are saying is that, if I can somehow get my hands on a copy of Fable, it's fair use to use it to train any models and serve those, since I'm no longer bound by the TOS of the service provider?

Asking for all Anthropic employees who dream big.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#419

Post by ddxv »

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…

I love VSCode built in LLM harness. No extensions, use any model you want, amazing UX for reviews, control of agents. The sandboxing also seems great, I never see models touching anything they shouldn't.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#420

Post by twobitshifter »

In a sane world would this be a potential antitrust case as they are a direct competitor to Codex?

How can you ban a competitor from using a model that you openly provide access to?

I understand that the OpenAI ToS may have been violated by X, but has anyone ruled on distillation as fair use? OpenAI believes distillation of nonAI produced content is fair use, so they don’t appear to have a leg to stand on.

Post reply on HN