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.
Comparing grok vs Gemini vs GPT vs Sonnet is like comparing mid-high end CPUs. They're all about as good as one another for most work.
You do you, but that's a very morally implicating choice you're making.
In no way is he a nazi or any of the other ad-hominem attacks y'all throw here.
You'll probably point to one instance of an awkward gesture, like Elon isn't awkward. Clearly hearing him talk, he's not a nazi or racist.
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
But you may be seeing your bias if you think grokipedia is wrong.
Probably being used to leftist editors on wikipedia would do that.
Or maybe it's somewhere in the middle for some events. You can always validate sources and determine for yourself.
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.
Are they? Their Composer 2.5 models is based on Kimi K2.5, it's not a bespoke model.
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.
The main challenge is: If models get better, why would humans need a tool like cursor, when they have AI agents doing the coding for them?