They’re pretty upfront in their release post that they took an open source model and improved it with their own coding data. They mention “continued pretraining” (on top of the base model) and RL. Cursor never claimed to have done a full pretraining run. More to the point, beating Opus 4.6 at coding and coming within striking distance of gpt-5.4 is impressive! The benchmarks outperform raw Kimi K2.5. It’s particularl…
Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL
111–120 of 180 posts
Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL
#112There's just too many "features" the ux ends up being all over the place. I thought having the browser inside of the editor would be great for design, but it's not that much better than just having your browser open along with your editor.
Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL
#113Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cursor Composer 1 was Qwen and this is Kimi. IDE is based on VSCode. The entire company is build on packaging open source and reselling it. The question is, where's the outrage? Why are there no headlines "USA steals Chinese tech?" "All USA can do is make a cheap copy of Chinese SOTA models". > So funny to see Twitter go wild saying "a 50 person team just beat Anthropic" blah blah. Well, if it's an American company…
because its open source.
Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kimi K2.5 was released under a modified MIT license (100M+ MAU or $20M+ MRR has to prominently display Kimi K2.5). It will be fine.
Basically this is true for most startups in the world BUT Cursor, so here you are kinda inverting the logic of the matter. Cursor is at a size that, if they wanted to use K2.5, they could clearly state that it was K2.5 or get a license to avoid saying it.
Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open source licence requires attribution which obviously it is not done in this case.
No it doesn’t? Depends on the license
[1] https://huggingface.co/moonshotai/Kimi-K2.5/blob/main/LICENS...
Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL
#117Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL
#118Cursor Composer 1 was Qwen and this is Kimi. IDE is based on VSCode. The entire company is build on packaging open source and reselling it. Ollama is also doing this. There is so much money to be made repackaging open source these days. So funny to see Twitter go wild saying "a 50 person team just beat Anthropic" blah blah.
> Cursor Composer 1 was Qwen and this is Kimi. IDE is based on VSCode. The entire company is build on packaging open source and reselling it. The question is, where's the outrage? Why are there no headlines "USA steals Chinese tech?" "All USA can do is make a cheap copy of Chinese SOTA models". > So funny to see Twitter go wild saying "a 50 person team just beat Anthropic" blah blah. Well, if it's an American company…
Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL
#119Cursor Composer 1 was Qwen and this is Kimi. IDE is based on VSCode. The entire company is build on packaging open source and reselling it. Ollama is also doing this. There is so much money to be made repackaging open source these days. So funny to see Twitter go wild saying "a 50 person team just beat Anthropic" blah blah.
> a 50 person team just beat Anthropic How does this blow that narrative up? A 50 person team likely broke a license to have a product that's competitive on output at a fraction of the costs of one of the most well capitalized companies on the planet. Claude code and anthropic are certainly the darlings of the space today, but to me this just reinforces the idea that their moat is razor thin on the model front, even…
I would also not rule out that since K2 is an 1T model, this is a distill, as I don't think they're serving expensive models just like that, which would not be a licensing violation?.
Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a 50 person team just beat Anthropic How does this blow that narrative up? A 50 person team likely broke a license to have a product that's competitive on output at a fraction of the costs of one of the most well capitalized companies on the planet. Claude code and anthropic are certainly the darlings of the space today, but to me this just reinforces the idea that their moat is razor thin on the model front, even…
Considering how AI companies incestously RL on each other's models, I would not be surprised if any number of behavioral patterns and (claims to be ChatGPT/Claude/Deepseek or whatever) just popped up on new models constantly. I would also not rule out that since K2 is an 1T model, this is a distill, as I don't think they're serving expensive models just like that, which would not be a licensing violation?.