Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

cursor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 238 posts

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#191

Post by Aurornis »

pdq wrote: post #178
WhitneyLand wrote: post #155

Say what you want about Cursor but they don’t lack for ambition. Forking VS Code, going big on bleeding edge features like cloud agents, and now they’ve thrown down the gauntlet directly challenging frontier labs by training their own model (“much larger” than Kimi 2.5’s 1T parameters) from scratch. They’ve been highly successful so far. Raised $50B, $2B in revenue, forecast to end 2026 above $6B. But even at these h…

Why is this comment upvoted? It is most likely AI generated with a nice "Raised $50B" hallucination and filled with cliches ("thrown down the gauntlet", "mountain you don’t climb just once", "not for the faint of heart").

Good catch. I didn’t even notice it at first, but the hallucinations on top of cliches gives it away.

The account doesn’t have a history of other comments that have too much of an AI vibe, but this one does. Even if it wasn’t AI, it’s misinformation.

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#192

Post by smnscu »

kilroy123 wrote: post #124
goyozi wrote: post #62

I kind of want to try it, to see if and how far they can take an open model and improve it but I really don’t miss the Cursor user experience. Constant UI changes, half-baked features, smaller and smaller limits, useless AI change attribution; I think I’ll wait for others to report if it’s any good.

I 100% agree. It's soooo buggy. I gave up, canceled my plan, and went back to boring old VSCode. It feels so much more stable, and my Mac no longer runs out of memory. With cursor I had to reboot my macbook several times a week and had to always be plugged in.

That's me with Google Antigravity. Switching back to vscode was such a breath of fresh air. Porting over my (extensive) settings/extensions/keyboard shortcuts was extremely easy too (just ask the agent to do it), and now I can use both Copilot models and Claude Code easily. More to your point though, the speed and stability is incomparable. I can't remember having many issues with Cursor last year when I used it at my last job, but still, vscode has been surprisingly pleasant for agentic use.

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#193

Post by bfeynman »

vessenes wrote: post #121
throwaw12 wrote: post #78

> Composer 2.5 is built on the same open-source checkpoint as Composer 2, Moonshot's Kimi K2.5. Really nice to see they're giving credit to the company and I am optimistic Kimi K open models soon will outperform Opus models

Sounds like it's the last Kimi-line model at Cursor? As expected they say they'll be training a larger model on the SpaceX infrastructure, or have already started most likely. I'm very curious to read about the Composer 3 architecture when it comes out. More frontier coding models are a good thing, especially if they diversify into different strengths/weaknesses.

That only seems plausible if whatever corpse of xAI is around is giving them engineering time. I don't know if they hired a bunch of ex frontier lab staff but its unlikely they have the technical capability to train their own frontier models especially the pretraining. Because the thing is if its not competitive with claude/codex it will be panned.

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#194

Post by maxdo »

throwa356262 wrote: post #131
maxdo wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can distilled opus become better than original? There are numbers of reports including anthropic that kimi team was participating in fraudulent activities

Do we know the "fraudulent " requests really came from moonshot engineers and was not QA team running a ton of benchmarks against other models? I feel distilling something as big as Opus would require many many more samples, but I dont really know much about this subject

sure, sounds like QA lol

Scale: Over 3.4 million exchanges

The operation targeted:

Agentic reasoning and tool use Coding and data analysis Computer-use agent development Computer vision Moonshot (Kimi models) employed hundreds of fraudulent accounts spanning multiple access pathways. Varied account types made the campaign harder to detect as a coordinated operation. We attributed the campaign through request metadata, which matched the public profiles of senior Moonshot staff. In a later phase, Moonshot used a more targeted approach, attempting to extract and reconstruct Claude’s reasoning traces.

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#195

Post by ta20240528 »

maxdo wrote: post #194
throwa356262 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we know the "fraudulent " requests really came from moonshot engineers and was not QA team running a ton of benchmarks against other models? I feel distilling something as big as Opus would require many many more samples, but I dont really know much about this subject

sure, sounds like QA lol Scale: Over 3.4 million exchanges The operation targeted: Agentic reasoning and tool use Coding and data analysis Computer-use agent development Computer vision Moonshot (Kimi models) employed hundreds of fraudulent accounts spanning multiple access pathways. Varied account types made the campaign harder to detect as a coordinated operation. We attributed the campaign through request metadata…

And when you here unsubstantiated rumours* that ­say Anthropic has been sending exchanges to say Alibaba's Qwen, will you als oconclude the same about the entire US AI industry?

I doubt it.

* publish the logs.

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#197

Post by farco12 »

asar wrote: post #2

The model is (like Composer 2) based on Kimi K2.5 and they claim SOTA performance for 1/10th of the cost. The tweet also mentions that they've started a new model from scratch on Colossus 2 (xAI/SpaceX Cluster). Really impressive how they've made this jump from being called the vscode fork with no moat just a couple of months ago.

One would hope the vscode fork with a $50B valuation and no moat, would wisely spend the money they raised to build a moat.

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#198

Post by ifwinterco »

ta20240528 wrote: post #195
maxdo wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sure, sounds like QA lol Scale: Over 3.4 million exchanges The operation targeted: Agentic reasoning and tool use Coding and data analysis Computer-use agent development Computer vision Moonshot (Kimi models) employed hundreds of fraudulent accounts spanning multiple access pathways. Varied account types made the campaign harder to detect as a coordinated operation. We attributed the campaign through request metadata…

And when you here unsubstantiated rumours* that ­say Anthropic has been sending exchanges to say Alibaba's Qwen, will you als oconclude the same about the entire US AI industry? I doubt it. * publish the logs.

Even if it's true, it's not like US AI companies can complain, given their entire business is based on ripping off text without attribution

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#199

Post by davidatbu »

Aurornis wrote: post #169
trymas wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and if I remember the drama correctly - Kimi's license or terms of use says that for commercial use cases (or was it user count?) - you must declare credit to Moonshot and Kimi.

This was misinformed Twitter and Reddit drama. They had properly licensed it and were complying with the terms of the license.

Note that something that helped the misinformation was that, on Twitter, there were Kimi employees expressing their surprise that the base model was Kimi K2.5, and their indignation that Cursor didn't credit Kimi. They later deleted their tweets (what I infer from that is that some employees were not aware of some pre-existing agreement or understanding between Cursor and Kimi until the drama happened).

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#200

Post by jjice »

3836293648 wrote: post #65
jjice wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. They're comparing it to the highest tier available models from Anthropic and OpenAI. Generally speaking, Opus is better than Sonnet in almost every way, so why have the redundancy?

Price to performance?

I think their comparison to how their benchmarks compare to Opus are a great way to show "look at similar benchmarks for a fraction of the cost". If it has Opus benchmarks (I don't actually take benchmarks seriously, but for their comparison purposes) and Sonnet is still more than half the price of Opus, I figure it's close enough where it doesn't matter.
Post reply on HN