▲ | rsanek 3 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
I was convinced of this line of thinking for a while too but lately I'm not so sure. In software in particular, I think it's actually quite relevant what you can do in-house with a SOTA model (especially in the tool calling / fine tuning phase) that you just don't get with the same model via API. Think Cursor vs. Claude Code -- you can use the same model in Cursor, but the experience with CC is far and away better. I think of it a bit like the Windows vs. macOS comparison. Obviously there will be many players that will build their own scaffolding around open or API-based models. But there is still a significant benefit to a single company being able to build both the model itself as well as the scaffolding and offering it as a unit. | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | mritchie712 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
CC being better than Cursor didn't make sense to me until I realized Anthropic trains[0] it's models to use it's own built-in tools[1]. 0 - https://x.com/thisritchie/status/1944038132665454841 1- https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/agents-and-tools/tool-use... | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
▲ | klausa 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
My gut feeling is that Claude Code being so popular is: - 60% just having a much better UX and having any amount of "taste", compared to Cursor - 39,9% being able to subsidize the raw token costs compared to what's being billed to Cursor - 0,1% some magical advantage by also training the model Claude Code is just much _pleasant_ to use than most other tools, and I think people are overly discounting that aspect of it. I'd rather use CC with slightly dumber model, than Cursor with a slightly better one; and I suspect I'm far from being the only one. |