91–100 of 180 posts
A hyped startup providing zero added value, burning investor money only to repackage somebody else's work? That's new... /s
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.
> Their moat looks pretty thin. Their value is in the data they've collected and are collecting. Usage, acceptance rate, and all the connected signals. Plus having a large userbase where they can A / B test any finetune they create.
Before people go jumping to conclusions about model theft, it's worth considering the possibility that they did reach an agreement with Moonshot which their researchers were not aware of. That would certainly explain the deleted tweets. Until Moonshot makes an official statement, I'm not particularly concerned.
Would this have been extensively fine tuned, beyond what Anthropic/OAI would do themselves?
I guess this is Cursor's own benchmark, so you can finetune on your own dataset and get better results on your own specific tasks I guess.
A question. I’m due for a yearly Cursor subscription renewal, how does the credit limit look like? Currently I’ve not hit any of the limits despite using it quite rigorously, I wonder if this will change with a renewal?
But you have to buy into it right? If you don't have a limit then what did your contract look like?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-12/ai-coding...
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 particularly impressive given larger labs like Meta are struggling to catch up to OpenAI/Anthropic.