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

Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 180 posts

Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL

#71

Post by Majromax »

rvz wrote: post #6

Honestly I don't think this leak is any good for Cursor. Not only this appears as a violation to Moonshot's ToS, this may also be in fact enough evidence for Anthropic to ban Cursor from using their models, just like they are doing to OpenCode. Why? As I said before, Anthropic mentions Moonshot AI (Maker of the Kimi models) as one of the AI labs that were part of this alleged "distillation attack" [0] campaign and wi…

> this may also be in fact enough evidence for Anthropic to ban Cursor from using their models, just like they are doing to OpenCode.

The Anthropic ban on OpenCode isn't an Anthropic ban on OpenCode, it's a ban on using a Calude Code subscription with OpenCode. That's justified (or not) under various ToS arguments, but one can still use OpenCode with the more expensive API access.

Anthropic's complaint about distillation attacks is a distinct prong, one not levied against OpenCode. Additionally, the distillation activities described in your link don't describe Cursor's routine use of Anthropic's models. There, the model outputs are a primary product (e.g. the autocompleted code), and any learning signals provided are incidental.

Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL

#72

Post by miroljub »

mohsen1 wrote: post #22

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. 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, then it's a noble underdog story. When Chinese do it, they are thieves leeching on the US tech investment.

It's all so predictable, even the comments here.

Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL

#73

Post by zozbot234 »

Majromax wrote: post #71
rvz wrote: post #6

Honestly I don't think this leak is any good for Cursor. Not only this appears as a violation to Moonshot's ToS, this may also be in fact enough evidence for Anthropic to ban Cursor from using their models, just like they are doing to OpenCode. Why? As I said before, Anthropic mentions Moonshot AI (Maker of the Kimi models) as one of the AI labs that were part of this alleged "distillation attack" [0] campaign and wi…

> this may also be in fact enough evidence for Anthropic to ban Cursor from using their models, just like they are doing to OpenCode. The Anthropic ban on OpenCode isn't an Anthropic ban on OpenCode, it's a ban on using a Calude Code subscription with OpenCode. That's justified (or not) under various ToS arguments, but one can still use OpenCode with the more expensive API access. Anthropic's complaint about distilla…

Anthropic's complaint about "distillation" attacks (obligatory scare quotes because training on glorified chat logs is a far cry from actually distilling from model weights you have real access to) is also about ToS violations. Anthropic's ToS, like OpenAI's, forbids you from exploiting interactions with their model for the purpose of building a competitor, even though rumor has it that the AI industry has been doing exactly this for a long time anyway.

Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL

#74

Post by __mharrison__ »

pbowyer wrote: post #36
NitpickLawyer wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> packaging open source and reselling it. It's a bit more than that. They have plenty of data to inform any finetunes they make. I don't know how much of a moat it will turn out to be in practice, but it's something. There's a reason every big provider made their own coding harness.

Can anyone enlighten me how having a coding harness when for most customers you say "we won't train on your code" helps you do RL? What's the data that they rely on? Is it the prompts and their responses?

Does "code" include the prompt? Seems like the prompts would be the goldmines. Hook those up to rl an open weight model...

Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL

#75

Post by merlindru »

jstummbillig wrote: post #18
gillesjacobs wrote: post #7

Cursor is mostly an IDE / coding-agent harness company. So it probably makes sense for them not to train their own base model, but instead license something like Kimi and fine-tune it for their own harness and workflows. Their moat looks pretty thin. A VSCode fork with an open-source LLM fork on top. In the fast-moving coding-agent market, it’s not obvious they keep their massive valuation forever.

There is a plausible scenario in which software engineering requires a very finite amount of intelligence, in which sota models will be used mainly for other things and where for coding the harness will become increasingly more important than the model.

i've kinda had this thought before but never could express it ("you only need up to a certain level of smartness to express most coding concepts correctly")

but it never occurred to me that, if true, of course the harness becomes increasingly more important. which feels absolutely correct of course.

not sure if the hypothesis is even true though.

Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL

#76

Post by druskacik »

prodigycorp wrote: post #43

There 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.

I agree, their autocomplete (tab) model is the best, but recently I realised I am using it less and less - the new models are so good that I mostly just do agentic coding, and I do very little changes in the codebase by myself. This is probably a general trend and if the usage of autocomplete models is dying out, it's understandable the companies are not investing resources into it.

Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL

#78

Post by doctorpangloss »

pbowyer wrote: post #36
NitpickLawyer wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> packaging open source and reselling it. It's a bit more than that. They have plenty of data to inform any finetunes they make. I don't know how much of a moat it will turn out to be in practice, but it's something. There's a reason every big provider made their own coding harness.

Can anyone enlighten me how having a coding harness when for most customers you say "we won't train on your code" helps you do RL? What's the data that they rely on? Is it the prompts and their responses?

It doesn't matter what your privacy setting is, with any savvy vendor. Your data is used to train by paraphrasing it, and the paraphrasing makes it impossible to prove it was your data (it is stored at rest paraphrased). Of course the paraphrasing stores all the salient information, like your goals and guidance to the bot to the answer, even if it has no PII.

Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL

#79

Post by chzblck »

miroljub wrote: post #72
mohsen1 wrote: post #22

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. 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…

because its open source.

Re: Cursor Composer 2 is just Kimi K2.5 with RL

#80

Post by gillesjacobs »

deaux wrote: post #16
gillesjacobs wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They probably licensed it. Still a bit deceptive not to mention it on the model card/blog post, but companies whitelabel all the time without mentioning. It goes against the ML community ethos to obscure it, but is common branding practice.

No they didn't [0][1]. With this leak they're probably negotiating as we speak, which could be why they've deleted the posts. [0] https://chainthink.cn/zh-CN/news/113784276696010804 [1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HD2Ky9jW4AAAe0Y?format=jpg&name=...

I stand corrected, that is pretty scummy.

I bet Moonshot is going to make them open their wallets to avoid legal trouble.

Post reply on HN