undefined

points

[-]

> For the past few months, SpaceXAI has been jointly training a model with Cursor, which will be released in Cursor and Grok Build soon.

https://x.com/SpaceX/status/2066873915717136548

by shimman4 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

They'll likely just take all the various enterprise contracts to help inflate SpaceX earnings, that's the only reason why you'd buy this if you were Musk. Need to help keep the lie going as long as you're still alive.

by alephnerd6 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

It also provides xAI with a pre-existing enterprise distribution channel. At the end of the day, distribution is equally as important as the underlying product itself and in some cases is even more critical.

by giancarlostoro6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I think that's another thing, while I would like to test Grok more, the Grok AI plans are very generic and not tailored specifically for programming, which is frustrating because I get maybe 8 hours out of Grok for $40 for an entire month, I do wonder if they offered a "Grok Build only plan" if it would actually give me access to more compute. Maybe they intend on making it through Cursor.

I do hope that Cursor doesn't remove any of its current model offerings, and just offers Grok Build in addition to what they already offer, in my opinion unless most of their clients "switch" to Grok (like metrics show they're mostly using Grok vs other models), it would make more sense.

by bigbluedots6 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

No company that uses Cursor now is going to be ok with using xAI models.

by alephnerd6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Not necessarily.

Enterprise AI adoption has reached a point now where FinOps matter, and a harness platform story with a discounted underlying model can be enticing for a number of organizations.

I've seen Gemini land well in a F100 well known for their AI hardware story for that reason, and Alibaba's leadership canned the OSS minded Qwen team in order to build a similar commercial minded approach as well.

At least in cybersecurity, we're also reaching a point where the harness is starting to matter more than the underlying foundation models, and building a harness/bedrock style story while discounting a specific model can play well in upper market deals.

by Leonard_of_Q6 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

What makes you think so? Is it only because you dont like Musk or do you have some insight into all companies using Cursor you want to share with us? Even if you dont like Musk you should realise that others may not share your sentiments and/or may have similar feelings regarding SamA, DarioA or any of the other CEOs in this field.

by bigbluedots6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Enterprise customers care about things like guardrails and data safety. xAI has always been anti guardrails, and who knows if you can trust them with your data.

by alephnerd6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

At least in the F1000 RFPs I've seen and the decisionmakers I've chatted with, when they talk about AI guardrails what they mean is generic API (eg. can we rate limit, block connections, RBAC/ABAC capabilities, etc) and Data Security (eg. ZDR, encryption at rest/transit, controlled access) controls.

There is a recognition that foundation models and tools leveraging them will introduce some degree of nondeterminism, so the best way to solve that is to leverage preexisting best practice that is used to reduce lateral movement risk by humans (who are similarly nondeterministic in nature).

by conductr5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

My company’s security team is very much “no proprietary data or information can be used to train a model”, I just don’t know how you can validate or trust that they aren’t doing just that.

by alephnerd3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

ZDRs, spot audits, and the fact that salespeople can be held personally liable both financially and even criminally for fraud if they sold a contract with a ZDR that was not honored.