Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vs code copilot is the same or better than cursor in my opinion - I mean that's where cursor comes from
Is this the chat on the side or the agents feature?
The chat on the side can use agents too
Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX
491–500 of 520 posts
Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX
#492Earlier quoted context omitted.
> become the only company in the world This is not a necessary end state. It is the byproduct of the disease of sociopathic MBAs.
It does seem like a lot of the valuations and infrastructure investments for these companies only make sense if each one assumes they will be the first and only one to invent superintelligence and that it will largely replace all knowledge work.
In which case the global economy is dead and there’s no one to buy their work?
Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX
#493Earlier quoted context omitted.
Downvoters: am I wrong or do you just not like what I'm saying?
I consider publicly enforced to be one where a government agency (e.g. the FDA), or prosecutors make judgements in what cases they file, make the arguments, etc. Otherwise, it's just a standard case between two private parties resolved through our legal system; e.g. Linkedin vs Hi5.
> it's just a standard case between two private parties resolved through our legal system
This is a gross distortion. Standard contractual rules bind the parties that signed the contract and the remedies are proportional to the damages and bounded. Copyright is tort law, the state binds the world to respect the rights of creators and the damages on infringement are punitive and can far exceed the actual commercial damages - to the point of bankrupting the infringer.
The key to torts is that the state is not neutral, there is a social good here it's protecting. Crucially, copyright, like some other torts - securities, antitrust, environmental, battery - also has a criminal enforcement regime, where, for particularly serious offenses, the state actually invests public resources to put the criminal infringer behind bars with little to no involvement from the original rights holders.
In the particular case of US, there is an entire state apparatus dedicated to enforcing US copyrights, a foreign affairs policy to shutdown "Notorious markets for counterfeiting and piracy" in other countries, international enforcement of DMCA etc.
The idea that a private TOS has the same level of public protection as copyright is downright childish.
Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX
#494Is 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…
Interesting that people aren’t suggesting smaller projects here - roo code, traycer are two worth checking out for this.
Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX
#495Earlier 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.
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?
The term "matters" is proportional to influence. Do you have a team of well financed attorneys?
Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX
#496Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
> you’re saying licences don’t matter?
Within this context, I don’t think so. I can’t make a website that buries some shrink wrap that requires everyone who reads it become vegan.
Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX
#497Earlier 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”?
> what makes theirs not “optional text nobody reads or understands”?
You accept it. You pay consideration for it. If your website has a TOS dickover, that requires someone attest with their legal name and pay you $1, yes, it may be enforceable under some circumstances.
Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX
#498Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
One could make arguments for OpenAI and Anthropic. But Google Search displays AI results above the SERP - clearly in competition with them. No premise or excuse there.
Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX
#499Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
Do you never have agents working on multiple tasks in parallel? You'll become much more productive when you figure out how to stop micromanaging.
More productive in what way? Letting agents burn tokens to produce garbage output is not productive. And letting teammates read code that wasn't reviewed by a human submitting it also isn't productive.
If I work with one agent / few subagents on one feature I can steer it as soon as I notice it drifting into the direction of waste. This way I only review the total diff 1.5-2 times. And I also don't waste my own mental energy on context switching between tasks agents are producing diffs for in parallel.
Re: Our decision on Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX
#500Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Did we not watch every single supposedly powerful US tech CEO immediately drop in supplication and kiss Trump's ring as soon as he became president? Because they know it will work. You don’t have to watch Trump speak for very long to know he’s not very intelligent. Similarly, you don’t have to be much smarter than him to know how easily he can be manipulated with adulation.
Imagine how deluded you have to be about reality and how deep invested into an ideology to loose to such a moron, twice..
Skreet skreet! Check it.
Lmao