This whole ai stuff feels like a big bubble especially with the oil price soon at $200 and guaranteed recession.

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 will use that reason to cut off Cursor, Just like they did to OpenAI, xAI and OpenCode.

Let's see if the market thinks Composor 2 is really that good without the Claude models helping Cursor. (If Anthropic cuts them off).

[0] https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist...

cursor copy open source software repack it as closed source and made massive money. i don't want to hear anything on how Chinese is stealing and copying when the west is doing it themselves.

YC is back at it again.

I whish it was GLM 5.0.

is this the model used on free mode?

For all the muh productivity guys that like to claim they can turn invisible when no one is looking, an produce 600k lock over 6 weeks, well...cursor is useless now. We know kimi K2.5 won't make you 100 trillion times faster.

Cursor is killed for this market.

A hyped startup providing zero added value, burning investor money only to repackage somebody else's work? That's new... /s

Honestly, this is pretty much how most of the new models operate nowadays: a base model combined with RL and some product-layer magic.

Cursor can't compete with Claude Code's subsidized pricing, so they are trying to gaslight people that their cheap model is good enough.

Most companies don't do auto competition these days, including some that just recently stopped offering completion.

Which I find very unfortunate. There are so many cases, especially in proprietary codebases with non standard infrastructure, where good autocomplete is much better than "agentic" edits that produce nothing but slop which takes longer to clean up.

There's a now-deleted tweet from a Kimi dev claiming that they verified the tokenizier was the same, which would imply it going at least beyond RL. Could still be a distill I think.

Earlier their employees were Tweeting that Cursor did not have a license ( https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HD2Ky9jW4AAAe0Y?format=jpg&name=... ) so Moonshot employees are partially to blame for the outrage.

Again, I was not questioning Cursor here, but inference partner terms makes no real sense and that is what I wanted explained.

Interesting. I wasn't aware that cursor also has a free tier!

Can you ensure that Notion is able to keep delivering given they don't develop their own models? Lovable? OpenCode? Should we be worried that Discord might disappear because they don't run their own data centers? Personally, I'm very concerned that one day Google might just have to close up shop, because while they do design their own chips, they don't fabricate them in-house; and don't get me started on TSMC and their critical dependency on ASML, they might as well just lock the doors.

Well, they can keep stealing as long as someone open weight their models.

Well, the UI as a whole is ok to me (except the parts which is way too volatile). I was talking about the UX of the autocomplete model. The model are very often spot on and fast, but it's impossible to properly configure it to be less in your face. Making it basically useless for day-to-day development.

I stand corrected, that is pretty scummy.

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

I guess they rely on many people not toggling privacy-mode on?

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.

The meta data is useful.

Eg, When a prompt had a bad result and was edited, or had lots of back and forth to correct tool usage that information can be distilled and used to improve models.

And now imagine if you are focused on this for weeks you can likely come up with other ideas to leverage the metadata to improve model performance.

I doubt the majority does that. I bet the majority is using the defaults.

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

A license doesn't matter if the perpetrator doesn't comply with it.

Open source licence requires attribution which obviously it is not done in this case.

Like licenses are worth anything in the AI world…

IF we assume that the modified MIT clause is enforceable. And if we assume Cursor Inc. is running the modification. It could very well be the case that Cursor Research LTD is doing the modifications and re-licensing it to Cursor Inc. That would make any clause in the modified MIT moot.

In practice nothing happens after violating an open source licenses, especially if you are willing to follow the terms after being notified.

I use both pretty heavily. Cursor has an "Ask" mode that is useful when I don't want it to touch files or ask a non-sequitur. Claude may have an easy way to do this, but I haven't seeked it.

Cursor also has an interesting Debug mode that actively adds specific debug logging logic to your code, runs through several hypotheses in a loop to narrow down the cause, then cleans up the logging. It can be super useful.

Finally, when making peecise changes I can select a function, hit cmd-L and add certain ljnes of code to the context. Hard to do that in Claude. Cursor tends to be much faster for quicker, more precise work in general, and rarely goes "searching through the codebase" for things.

Most importantly, I'm cheap. a If I leave Cursor on Auto I can use it full time, 8 hours a day, and never go past the $20 monthly charge. Yes, it is probably just using free models but they are quite decent now, quick and great for inline work.

Mostly saying "include this line from x file and this block from y file" which keyboard shortcuts. Claude's VSCode plugin only does one selection. Claude Code requires explicitly telling it what to reference.

That plus Cursor's integration into VSCode feels very deep and part of the IDE, including how it indexes file efficiently and links to changed files, opens plans. Using Claude Code's VScode extension loads into a panel like a file which feels like a hack, not a dedicated sidebar. The output doesn't always properly link to files you can click on. Lots of small stuff like that which significantly improves the DX without swapping tabs or loading a terminal.

I also use Code from terminal sometimes but it feels very isolated unless you're vibecoding something new. I also tried others: Zed is only like 50% of the way there (or less). I also tried to use (Neo)Vim again and it's also nowhere close, probably 25% of the UX of Cursor even with experimental plugins/terminal setups.

You’re not missing much.

I used Cursor for the second half of last year. If you’re hand-editing code, its autocomplete is super nice, basically like reading your mind.

But it turns out the people who say we’re moving to a world where programming is automated are pretty much right.

I switched to Claude Code about three weeks ago and haven’t looked back. Being CLI-first is just so much more powerful than IDE-first, because tons of work that isn’t just coding happens there. I use the VSCode extension in maybe 10% of my sessions when I want targeted edits.

So having a good autocomplete story like Cursor is either not useful, or anti-useful because it keeps you from getting your hands off the code.

In cursor:

You can copy/paste or drag code snippets the chat window and they automatically become context like. (@myFile.cpp:300-310)

You can click any of the generated diffs in the assistant chat window to instantly jump to the code.

Generated code just appears as diffs till you manually approve each snippet or file. (which is fairly easy to do with "jump to next snippet/file" buttons)

These are all features I use constantly as someone who doesn't vibe but wants to just say "pack/unpack this struct into json", "add this new property to the struct, add it to the serialization, and the UI", and other true busywork tasks.

> Do you think Chinese LLMs acquired training data legitimately?

I think they probably acquire it in accordance with Chinese law.

> but I don't think the US "started it" to be fair.

Who are you quoting with those marks? Started what? To be fair to whom?

I mean as if anthropic and openai did.

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.

My first reaction was "well, who knows how much revenue they're actually doing"

But at least the rumor mill has them significantly above that line:

> Revenue: As of March 2026, reports suggest Cursor has surpassed $2 billion in annualized revenue (ARR).

That's not an open source license, then.

Cursor have said they are using Composer through their inference provider (Fireworks). Presumably the MIT is not viral like the GPL, so Cursor, and companies that use Cursor do not need to display Kimi attribution on their products.

It's definitely not what Kimi wanted, but it sounds like this is what is written.

> That's extremely rich coming from Anthropic

And funny.

> So you think it is "fair" […]

Maybe fair in a tit-for-tat sort of way, but not okay. That's why I called the whole situation funny. The rest of your post is answered in the sibling comment.

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

Although it is not OSI approved, the license theoretically didn't add any more restrictions beyond attribution, which stays in line with The Open Source Definition.

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

Ah yes, a document titled "*THE* Open Source Definition", describing *THEIR* definition of open source.

The linked wikipedia article specifically talks about China struggling to enforce Chinese law. Here's a quote:

> Despite making efforts in intellectual property protection in China, a major obstacle in prosecution is corruption in courts; local protectionism and political influence prohibits effective enforcement of intellectual property laws. To help overcome local corruption, China established specialized IP courts and sharply increased financial penalties.

> all nations in the history of mankind have been "stealing" "intellectual property" since forever

You can't use 100-400 years ago as the counterexample to what happens today. It's like justifying Russian invasion of Ukraine with colonists invading Native American territories. We're in a different world order, things that were normalized that far back shouldn't be normalized today.

I see no evidence that they do act substantially differently post nukes given everything going on in the world in the news today. Regardless, this thread is going off topic, have a good day.

> I didn't say anything about increasing cases

You also didn't read the source from where that link was from.

> What matters is the order established in recent history.

> Colonization was normalized

Sounds pretty racist man.