It peaked at around +60% from IPO price and swung daily around 10-15%. It’s possible it’s starting to stabilize but that first week was basically the definition of volatile.
> Before writing off the totalitarian world as a nightmare that can't come true, just remember that in 1925 the world of today would have seemed a nightmare that couldn't come true. Against that shifting phantasmagoric world in which black may be white tomorrow and yesterday's weather can be changed by decree, there are in reality only two safeguards. One is that however much you deny the truth, the truth goes on existing, as it were, behind your back, and you consequently can't violate it in ways that impair military efficiency. The other is that so long as some parts of the earth remain unconquered, the liberal tradition can be kept alive. — Orwell
Yea my father is looking for a new car, sedan, and will only buy American. Except American owned companies don’t really make sedans anymore. So he’s unsure what to do. I told him basically any Toyota sedan he buys would be made in the US and it blew his mind. I don’t understand how people who have strong opinions on these sorts of things don’t also do any research at all into their opinion.
The reason it is so noteworthy is because these companies are based upon valuations which assume mostly debt free companies with giant free cash flows. If Google starts to look like Ford a lot of the assumptions around why it’s worth so much money go out the window. Of course we’re not there but this is a change in direction which is new and noteworthy.
I think it's true across most of society today. There's value in removing friction up to a point but we're finding that by treating everything as an end to optimize results in loss of meaning. Most of life is lived in the in between moments and by fully removing them we lose something important.
Interestingly I haven’t had such a challenge in the past but regularly am accused of being AI. In my case I think it’s because I have experience writing philosophy papers which trend towards a more stilted tone. For this response I’m also probably exaggerating it a tad.
A lot of it is that good argumentative/persuasive writing follows the structures that AI writing follow. Groups of three, not only x but y, etc. It’s all stuff that’s considered a best practice. It used to be comments structured like that meant you were writing overly formally now it’s so common people see it as LLM output.
Oh as for how I feel about this… couldn’t care less if people think I’m AI or not. Im not in it for the karma, I don’t care if people think I use AI even as someone who’s anti AI.
Just because something is doesn’t mean it ought to be. We’ve settled on this system because it seems to be generally the most effective way of valuing things. In times of extreme changes in valuation it comes off as more egregious than normal.
>Their expertise will be used to improve Grok Build coding agent.
Is Grok not a toxic enough brand (by association with Musk) that people who would use Cursor wouldn't avoid Grok?
Like, the assumption seems to be that all the goodwill that Cursor users have towards Cursor will now apply automatically to Grok, which seems like a pretty significant leap.
I've been teaching myself physics lately and have found Grok to be one of the best both at coming to a correct answer and helping me to understand how to get it myself. It also seems a lot better than other models at saying "I don't know" or pointing out when my question doesn't make sense.
I'm just trying to get it to help me learn physics. If my topic of interest shifts to mid-20th century European history I'll keep what you said in mind.
If you're going to use the model to learn history you're going to learn the version of history that the model teaches you. A little bit of digging around grokpedia should give you some idea of what that model thinks
I'm a heavy Cursor user, I spend hundreds of dollars per month in overages above my $200 subscription, and I'll be switching away. I have zero interest in Musk's AI.
The CEOs ideology matters due to the fact it impacts the product design. The reason people don't want to use Grok is because it's bad, and it's bad because the team behind grok have to spend cycles crowbarring in far right white genocide conspiracy theories so that it doesn't embarrass their boss on twitter. One of the things we learned with Anthropic is that you have a lot more success being focused on the core product - coding agent, than trying to do that and chase internet chatbot users.
As someone that trains LLMs, even if grok does have a "avoid ""woke""" fine-tuning, adding that needs a few thousand examples SFT and a system prompt. It costs nothing extra to do it to coding agents and is not the reason why grok sucks at coding. It's just not in the same league in general - it's 0.5T parameters only and not trained specifically for coding at all.
Even if the way they are doing it did damage coding performance, it is a simple matter of serving another model without that fine tuning in the enterprise API preferably only to the grok coding harness (or cursor, now). Coding performance for subscription plans don't move the needle in terms of revenue anyways and quality there doesn't matter as much.
Achieving the improvements from K2.5 -> composer 2.5 with just post-training is actually more impressive. Though I believe their next model is trained from scratch.
> So SpaceX is buying 15 years of future cashflows, assuming no change in revenue. Which is bad assumption given past growth was gigantic.
I'd argue it's a bad assumption in the opposite direction. There's no moat. People can and will switch tooling and Cursor could easily be left with a steep decline in users.
But revenue is not really the informative quantity. If you sell gold you will have a huge revenue, but very little profit. I can be a trillion dollar company too if we exchange dollar bills for face value.
"training good coding models" many would say that is a highly debatable statement, and some would say that is just flat out not true. Cursor has not trained a frontier model from scratch, what they did was take an already made (non-frontier) model and further trained it on their user data about coding outcomes from its coding agent. So, a form of distillation and RL.
Sure - why use cash when you can use bits of paper instead?
I'd expect more of the same to come - good way to lock in some of this crazy SpaceX valuation by converting it into something with a bit more inherent worth.
Cursor is massively overvalued. But so is SpaceX so it all evens out in the end.
> each share of Cursor’s common stock and each share of Cursor’s preferred stock outstanding immediately prior to the Effective Time of the Merger will be automatically converted into the right to receive shares of the Company’s Class A common stock based on an implied equity value of Cursor of $60.0 billion and the price of the Company’s Class A common stock equal to the volume-weighted average closing price thereof over the seven consecutive trading days
Current market cap is 2.66T which is pretty bonkers. Thats about intel, amd, and micron put together.
This is what always confuses me about the “keep up or get left behind” crowd. Either these tools are gods in boxes and we’re all going to be replaced or they are actually something that you can gain expertise around. If you can gain expertise around them then sure there’s value in keeping up. But those shouting we’ve all gotta keep up are mostly the same claiming they are building god boxes. It genuinely has to be one or the other. Something isn’t a god box if you have to learn how to best use it.
Seems like there is skill in knowing what to ask the genie for, no matter how powerful the genie is? How is that not going to be an issue?
That said, there are things people had to worry about last year with weaker models that aren't really a problem anymore, so some of the knowledge you get by "keeping up" becomes obsolete and could be skipped by waiting.
Context: I vibe code most of my production code, but I come from a long FED career so I'm vibe-coding small things, constantly tweaking, refining prompts, picking work to do that fits with the existing work, etc. So I'm either "doing it wrong" or "being careful". Anyway, that's the perspective I have ATM...
So, it seems to me that there's quite a lot of skill to using these "god boxes": which models, connecting to your systems, hosting the code, running the model, running the code, not breaking your production pipelines, having a production pipeline in the first place.
Sure, the god boxes help with a lot of that. But they don't help setting up the accounts, connecting your code hosting to your production servers. You can't currently just give random people in your org access to an LLM account and have them safely make production changes w/out some engineering knowledge and oversight. In NGOs, especially the small ones, they already outsource all that to 3rd parties so they don't have to worry about it. But with "just the right amount" of in-house knowledge, gear, config (maybe one office computer hooked up with Claude, or a small GHCP account, with GH + hosting configured), it's possible that anyone in the company might be able to add to the company's suite of useful small tools, or add features.
(I also think there's more to "hey claude, make feature X" than we're capturing here, but as I said at the top, I might be doing it wrong.)
> This is what always confuses me about the “keep up or get left behind” crowd. ... But those shouting we’ve all gotta keep up are mostly the same claiming they are building god boxes. It genuinely has to be one or the other. Something isn’t a god box if you have to learn how to best use it.
I think the answer is the shouters are just telling people what they want to hear (a.k.a. lying), in the service of selling more. To the capitalists, they sell "god boxes" with the promise of one day being able to lay of most if not all those pesky, annoying workers. To the workers, they sell "something that you can gain expertise around" to defuse the intense opposition a job-destroying "got box" would create.
