> 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.

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).

> 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.

> Cursor Composer 1 was Qwen...

We know Composer 2 is Kimi K2.5 from that tweet. Where is the evidence for Composer 1 being based on Qwen?

> So funny to see Twitter go wild saying "a 50 person team just beat Anthropic" blah blah.

In this case, it will be the other way round: Anthropic will see Cursor as a competitor AI lab using open weight models for Composor 2 (actually Kimi K2.5) which was allegedly distilled from Opus 4.6, and would be enough for Anthropic to cut off Cursor from using any of models.

That's where it is going.

Do you know what Qwen model Composer 1.5 used?

This is on their website...

"Is Kimi K2.5 open source?"

"Yes, Kimi K2.5 is an open source AI model. Developers and researchers can explore its architecture, build new solutions, and experiment openly. Model weights and code are publicly available on Hugging Face and the official GitHub repository."

https://www.kimi.com/ai-models/kimi-k2-5

TBH they really shouldn't have posted such a tweet in the first place, just sit back and watch their license enforced by the Internet.

I had the question "how do you even enforce this weird license term" back then, I guess I know the answer now.

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.

> 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.

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.

Antigravity has an autocomplete model too. Based on Windsurf's, I guess.

The model is great. The UX is ~~horrible~~ annoying...

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 is no ToS at play here. There's only the license[1], which is MIT modified like so:

> Our only modification part is that, if the Software (or any derivative works thereof) is used for any of your commercial products or services that have more than 100 million monthly active users, or more than 20 million US dollars (or equivalent in other currencies) in monthly revenue, you shall prominently display "Kimi K2.5" on the user interface of such product or service.

[1] - https://huggingface.co/moonshotai/Kimi-K2.5/blob/main/LICENS...

At the same time, Moonshot violated Anthropic's ToS by training on their models' outputs :) [0]. And Anthropic violated copyright law by training on copyrighted material. It's violations all the way down.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47126614

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.

Kimi K2.5 was released under a modified MIT license (100M+ MAU or $20M+ MRR has to prominently display Kimi K2.5). It will be fine.

apparently GPT-5 uses the same pretrain as 4o did, hah

As a paying customer, I don't care where the model comes from, I only care how good it is.

White-labeling may be slightly dishonest to the consumer but the manufacturer and distributor are honest with each other. That doesn't appear to be the case here (Kimi's license requires publicly acknowledging Kimi is used for anyone operating at Cursor's scale).

But you have to buy into it right? If you don't have a limit then what did your contract look like?

> 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.

Kimi K2.5 is an open source model. It is intended for people to make derivative models.

It depends on what you consider value. People are using it so they find some value.