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

441–450 of 535 posts

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#441

Post by biql »

lygaret wrote: post #181
consumer451 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they will stop releasing their latest models, and just attempt to eat all software themselves. Otherwise, it will be competitors distilling, and the government getting upset. It's hard for me to see a different future. And, this really sucks. If this thesis is true, I wonder what the final YC batch number might be.

I believe if this was true, we'd already be seeing vibed stuff succeeding everywhere, and pricing out incumbents, but I guess I'm not seeing this? Like at all? Even if they have Astra or whatever completely to themselves, how do they deal with the -product- side? Or sales, or account management? They've been focused on juicing model's coding capabilities, but it's absolutely -not- "gen ai" enough to be doing the whol…

One thing I see is design often getting worse, tasteless, how small but important details are just not thought out.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#442

Post by quicklywilliam »

I think it’s important not to let AI companies control the framing here. This is anti-competitive behavior, plain and simple. The fact that xAI/Musk routinely break the law simply provides the fig leaf.

Distillation is a threat to frontier model companies, but that doesn’t make it dangerous or wrong. OpenAI can (and likely will) use the same logic to ban you from using open source harnesses.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#443

Post by beckhamc »

jackjeff wrote: post #239
meerita wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's OpenCode, Claude Code, Codex. I don't like to use GUIs so I rely purely on agentic AI on CLIs.

In the case of TUIs I’m going to assume you review the code externally in neovim or lazy git or something like that? I don’t like relying on GIT for that and making things as good/done as I go. But with these agentic tools that’s what I have to do. Stage everything I like, manually edits a few bits. But what do you when you find something where you want to say the agent: I don’t like this for reasons x and y redo as…

I was looking at CLI-only solutions a while ago and the best thing I found was to use something like revdiff: https://github.com/umputun/revdiff

For instance, in Claude Code you can have it bring up this TUI overlay after every edit it makes (it literally is an overlay, rather than a separate tab in your terminal) and you can annotate line-by-line anything you want changed or rejected. Then once you exit the overlay those suggestions are automatically piped back into the agent.

I tried a few of these TUI-based code annotators, and this one is by far the best. It also works for files not under version control.

I'm currently not using it as I also prefer something more akin to "text editor with agent built in", but I wanted to mention here in case you were curious.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#444

Post by lovich »

quicklywilliam wrote: post #442

I think it’s important not to let AI companies control the framing here. This is anti-competitive behavior, plain and simple. The fact that xAI/Musk routinely break the law simply provides the fig leaf. Distillation is a threat to frontier model companies, but that doesn’t make it dangerous or wrong. OpenAI can (and likely will) use the same logic to ban you from using open source harnesses.

I’m on team fuck both of these organizations, but not continuing to work with an organization that already willing violated contracts you had with them doesn’t exactly seem like a hard to justify decision.

That is to say, this isn’t a fig leaf imo.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#445

Post by RetpolineDrama »

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…

>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.

Insanely inefficient. It's 10x more productive to watch the thinking traces and edits in real time and steer the model appropriately.

If your workflow is typical no wonder my team members who use claude code are so much less productive.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#446

Post by ronsor »

bentt wrote: post #402
oh_no wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you dont like giving openai money but you're fine with spacex? not criticizing, just trying to understand.

Honestly, I've been a Cursor subscriber for a while and it was just momentum. Still, I rank OpenAI as the worst actor among the big AI companies. I think OpenAI's playbook will be a repeat of Facebook. Users are the product x 1000. Cursor/SpaceX/Grok is a different beast. I think they will cheat other companies but I'm not convinced yet that they have it out for users. We'll see. I'm certainly not some kind of Cursor…

I used to think OpenAI was the only bad actor until I realized they were the only honestly corporate actor.

The other AI companies obfuscate their goals much better.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#447

Post by hn1986 »

wodenokoto wrote: post #137

> we are giving the maximum notice provided by our contract. Anyone else surprised that the maximum notice period allowed is about 3 months? I would have thought 3 months is minimum notice period, with provisions to stop faster if any provable violation occurs.

3 months is a long time in AI world

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#448

Post by Timon3 »

notatoad wrote: post #413
Timon3 wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

Unfortunately this will keep happening in capitalist systems without hard wealth caps, because capitalists would rather risk the extermination of entire groups of people than risking their wealth, so they will inevitably keep spreading & stoking fascist ideas.

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#449

Post by [deleted] »

trollbridge wrote: post #378
foxglacier wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”?

[deleted]

Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX

#450

Post by richard___ »

verdverm wrote: post #427
twobitshifter wrote: post #420

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.

In a sane world, one should be able to choose not to do business with a company for any reason there are plenty of alternatives, 100s, so I don't think antitrust is on the table, think of this more like a boycott of the world's richest man for being a twat

you are projecting
Post reply on HN