YC is back at it again.
Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL
61–70 of 180 posts
Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not an open source license, then.
Why not?
This 'Modified MIT' is not a license that has been through the OSI process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition#Com...
You can't just add random terms to an existing license and use its name. "Modified MIT: Like MIT but pay us 50 million dollars."
Perhaps CC-BY would've been more appropriate.
Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL
#63I'm annoyed that we still don't know for certain which base model they used for Cursor 1.
This feels really rude to me. I have no problem with them fine-tuning open weight models to create their own - they are getting great results, and Cursor's research term should be respected for that. But deliberately hiding the base model they use is disrespectful of the researchers who created that model.
Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL
#64I don't know - it works okay (yet to be tested whether it is actually smarter than Opus 4.6), but it is not bad at all. So far, it works quite fine (I'm not testing the "fast" version).
Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wouldn't be regardless, because the model is open weights, not open source. It's just a license.
Which contradicts what they say on their website.
Correct. (and I know you already know this but just for the record: (Nearly?) Everybody abuses the term "open source" when it comes to models. OSI have a post about it: https://opensource.org/ai/open-weights
Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not?
This 'Modified MIT' is not a license that has been through the OSI process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition#Com... You can't just add random terms to an existing license and use its name. "Modified MIT: Like MIT but pay us 50 million dollars." Perhaps CC-BY would've been more appropriate.
Correct again -- CC- applies to data, not code -- weights are data, open weights suggests a creative commons approach …
“ CC-BY 4.0 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
This license requires that reusers give credit to the creator. It allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, even for commercial purposes.
BY Credit must be given to you, the creator. ”
it's annoying the open source term is being cargo-culted around and I hate to say it but that ship looks like it has sailed.
funny that free software people were infuriated by the open source term and now the open source term is being completely misused in another context
Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've replied down the thread, but there are ways to go around that clause entirely, even if it would be enforceable. The obvious way is to have another company do the modification.
The worthwhile question AIUI is whether AI weights are even protected by human copyright. Note that firms whose "core" value is their proprietary AI weights don't even need this (at least AIUI) since they always can fall back on "they are clearly protected against misappropriation, like a trade secret". It becomes more interesting wrt. openly available AI models.
> The worthwhile question AIUI is whether AI weights are even protected by human copyright.
I'm also deeply curious about this legal question.
As I see it, model weights are the result of a mechanistic and lossy translation between training data and the final output weights. There is some human creativity involved, but that creativity is found exclusively in the model's code and training data, which are independently covered by copyright. Training is like a very expensive compilation process, and we have long-established that compiled artifacts are not distinct acts of creation.
In the case of a proprietary model like Kimi, copyright might survive based on 'special sauce' training like reinforcement learning – although that competes against the argument that pretraining on copyrighted data is 'fair use' transformation. However, I can't see a good argument that a model trained on a fully public domain dataset (with a genuinely open-source architecture) could support a copyright claim.
Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL
#68This is exactly what Cursor should be doing, within the obvious bounds of the law and such. Not everyone needs a pristine foundation model. What a waste of compute. Anthropic & OpenAI need product-level competition to knock them off their $25/Mtok horse.
Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL
#69Cursor 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’s integration is much deeper than just plugging an LLM into VSCode
That said I have a feeling both VSCode and Claude code will catch up to their integration. But neither comes close yet (I say that as someone who mainly uses Claude Code).
Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL
#70There are many reasons to make fun of Cursor. However , one of the things get right is their autocomplete model. Are there any open models that come close? Why doesnt OAI or Anthropic dedicate some resources to blowing Cursor's model out of the water? Cursor's completion model is a sticking point for a lot of users.
Antigravity has an autocomplete model too. Based on Windsurf's, I guess.
Absolutely not. Windsurf also just stole an open source model, there’s almost zero chance Google is using that under the hood.