Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Matt Maher tested frontier models in Cursor v. other harnesses. Cursor boosted model performance by 11% on average: Gemini: 52% → 57% GPT-5.4: 82% → 88% Opus: 77% → 93% His benchmark measures how well models implement a 100-feature PRD. Cursor consistently outperformed.

915,594 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 38

Фото профиля evaan
evaan7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai wow. opus actually shined there! these are very interesting results. i'd love to use cursor, its DX is really really good but currently with claude code and codex inference pricing discounts it's just seems too expensive in comparison.

Фото профиля edwin
edwin7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai DM me

Фото профиля evaan
evaan7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai dm'd :)

Фото профиля edwin
edwin7 месяцев назад

Full vid:

Фото профиля Mike Coutermarsh
Mike Coutermarsh7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai I have noticed cursor with opus seems to give me better results than using claude code directly!

Фото профиля Jimmy Ashcot
Jimmy Ashcot7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai Harness matters more than people want to admit

Фото профиля Sumuk
Sumuk7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai damn are you guys doing better than anthropic directly RLing with the cc harness is it the same cursor harness for diff models?

Фото профиля Robert Hu 🦉
Robert Hu 🦉7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai Cursor quietly becoming the benchmark itself.

Фото профиля edwin
edwin7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai

Фото профиля Daniel San
Daniel San7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai Pretty impressive.

Фото профиля Avikam Mangla
Avikam Mangla7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai lol opus has always worked better in cursor than claude code for me. codex on the other hand is already amazing

Фото профиля Stephen Haney
Stephen Haney7 месяцев назад

@soleio @cursor_ai I believe this

Фото профиля Gabriel Moncha
Gabriel Moncha7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai Cursor really is a great harness. too bad you can't use a provider subscription with it API pricing points do not justify the benefits

Фото профиля Boyuan (Nemo) Chen
Boyuan (Nemo) Chen7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai The Opus jump from 77% to 93% is wild. That delta is bigger than most model upgrades give you. Feels like harness quality is becoming its own axis of improvement, maybe as important as model capability itself.

Фото профиля enzo ¿ 
enzo ¿ 7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai What a brilliant result! I’ve been using Cursor for almost a year now, I had a Max plan before, but was tempted to switch to Claude Code because of the more affordable price.. I have high hopes for Cursor’s future

Фото профиля Gregor
Gregor7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai I've noticed similar boosts in performance when using Cursor with my finance app. When I optimized my model for a specific use case, I saw a 7% reduction in errors, which translated to a 5% increase in user retention. Those small wins add up quickly.

Фото профиля R.
R.7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai Ok, I stand corrected, Cursor seems to be a strong harness for the frontiers, but the problem still stands on pricing. Rn, it makes more sense for me to remain a max subscriber on claude and codex simultaneouslly. Still hitting limits on both this week. 🫠

Фото профиля ry
ry7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai Midi is not talked about enough in how inanely fast, good, and cheap it is in cursors harness

Фото профиля Ameya
Ameya7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai the boost is context. cursor can see your entire codebase, your project structure, your dependencies. it's not that the models got smarter. it's that they can finally see what they're shipping into.

Фото профиля Bryan Jackson
Bryan Jackson7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai Native Violation... But this has been my feeling as well as using the tools. I think Claude and Codex just have a lot of marketing going through right now.

Фото профиля Vladyslav Hunt
Vladyslav Hunt7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai opus going from 77 to 93 in cursor means the harness is doing more work than the model itself. the wrapper became the product

Фото профиля notclaudio
notclaudio7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai Love this, actually explains why working on cursor always feels much smarter than Codex or even Antigravity, but yeah, using Claude on a $20 plan is just not sustainable

Фото профиля Andrew Seb
Andrew Seb6 месяцев назад

I used to use Cursor and was very happy with it. It did a significantly better job compared to other CLI tools and IDEs I tried. Every new update made it better. I had even started porting tools made for other CLIs to Cursor because Cursor did a better job at directing the models than other IDEs. Once Cursor moved away from the request model, it was financially inefficient to use Cursor anymore. Composer 1.5 had more leeway in terms of usage but it was unable to build as effectively as Opus. Now, I use Claude Code with the $200 plan and I don't have to worry about usage anymore. If Cursor can improve the usage limits on external models, I'd switch back to Cursor today.

Фото профиля Cyril Tovena 🇪🇺
Cyril Tovena 🇪🇺7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai Yeah I believe this. If frontier labs were not selling at lost that would be a big deal.

Фото профиля Yehoshua King
Yehoshua King7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai I am the co-founder of an AI startup. Our team of 8 was spending $10,000 a month on Cursor and now we are spending $1,000 per month on Claude code with the same usage.

Фото профиля Oleksii
Oleksii7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai context: gpt-5.4 xhigh in codex cli got 95% making those gains less important

Фото профиля Michiel V
Michiel V7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai opus jumping to 93% in cursor is insane. wonder how much of that is the system prompt vs the tab context

Фото профиля SCK
SCK7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai I was using $2500/mo with cursor with Sonnet 4.5/4.6, switched to vs code with claude code extension, have stayed within my max plan no problem. Not acceptable for 11% increase in performance.

Фото профиля pablo
pablo7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai opus at 93% is wild. the harness matters more than people admit

Фото профиля @Twenty
@Twenty7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai The Opus 93% number is the real headline. Means the harness matters more than the model for complex PRD tasks. At some point the gap between raw capability and harness-engineered output becomes the actual product moat. We're already there.

Фото профиля Ed
Ed7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai This is awesome! Something that other IDEs should copy.

Фото профиля 9Crypt Labs
9Crypt Labs6 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai He's one of the best youtubers

Фото профиля AriesTheCoder
AriesTheCoder7 месяцев назад

Can you please try out @FactoryAI / @droid and let me know what results you get? I'd be interested to see how you go because it's been the best harness that has an observable marked improvement across all models I've used when compared with any other harness (including Cursor at the time) hands down.

Фото профиля rihim
rihim7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai is it the same cursor harness in the cli? like exact same?

Фото профиля Soren Larson
Soren Larson7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai super cool!!

Фото профиля Danik Pavlovski
Danik Pavlovski7 месяцев назад

used cursor about a year ago when i was 15, the experience was genuinely great. but that was before claude code and codex dropped, once those came out with way better pricing, hard to justify paying for cursor on top of model costs. would honestly go back because of the DX in cursor, but paying for cursor on top of everything else is just too much rn

Фото профиля victor
victor6 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai prompt engineering to IPO run

Фото профиля pd
pd7 месяцев назад

@cursor_ai Cursor harness is great, especially for Gemini. I’ve found that Gemini just spirals and loops forever a lot in other harnesses. Only thing is Claude code is just way cheaper for me

Похожие видео

Elon Musk just made one if the biggest moves in taking over the programming industry “SpaceX just bought Cursor for $60 billion. Do you realize how big this is? SpaceX went public — the biggest IPO in history. $75 billion raised, almost a $2 trillion valuation and the first thing to do with that money? Buy the most popular AI coding tool on the planet. Here's why that changes everything. Elon now owns 3 layers: the compute, Colossus data centers, the models, Grok through xAI, and now the tool that developers actually use every day. It's the full stack. And here's what makes Cursor different from Claude Code or Codex. Cursor is model agnostic. You can run Claude in it, GPT, Gemini, whatever model you want. It's not locked to any one company, and now it has SpaceX's resources behind it. Cursor said they were bottlenecked by compute. Well, that bottleneck has just been removed. $4 billion in annual revenue, over half the Fortune 500 already uses it, and now it's backed by a $2 trillion company. OpenAI has Codex, Anthropic has Claude Code, and now Elon has Cursor.” Let me break this down in simple terms Elon Musk now controls more of the full AI picture: - Massive computers, power (data centers like Colossus) - Smart AI models (Grok from xAI) - The actual tool millions of developers use every day (Cursor) For every day users this means Faster and smarter apps and websites in the future. More developers using powerful AI tools means new apps, games, websites, and features get built quicker and cheaper. This means better video games, smoother streaming, smarter phone apps and better programs For Developers they can describe what they want in plain English (“make a feature that does X”) and the AI handles more of the heavy lifting

Wall Street Apes

213,699 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Welcome to the era of embodied AI. We are launching AA-Robotics v0.1, our research preview that measures frontier language model performance on understanding, planning, and acting in the physical world. In v0.1, each model is given control of a 6-axis robot arm (5 joints and a gripper) and a simple objective. We’re releasing results for our first eight tasks today. We find that frontier language models in coding agent harnesses have recently become capable of directly manipulating robot arms for simple tasks. Today, they are far too slow and expensive for any kind of production usage - nearly two orders of magnitude worse than human baselines. We expect this to change quickly. GPT-6 Astra places first in AA-Robotics v0.1, followed by GPT-6.1 Sol, Gemini 4 Argon and Claude Opus 5.5. AA-Robotics v0.1 details: ➤ Our first eight tasks test a range of capabilities: control and dexterity (precise grasping and object handling), spatial reasoning (how objects interact with one another) and adaptability (how models respond to the unexpected) ➤ Models get only brief instructions: how to connect to the robot arm (via a simple HTTP API), the arm's name and how to submit an attempt. They can view the scene through four cameras and write and run code to plan and send movements ➤ Once a model submits an attempt, its end state is graded against the task's pass criteria. A pass scores 100; an incomplete attempt earns partial credit. All attempts are zero-shot Key findings: ➤ The GPT family tops the leaderboard: GPT-6 Astra scores 69, ahead of GPT-6.1 Sol at 65 and Gemini 4 Argon at 55. Claude Opus 5.5 (49) and Claude Fable 5.1 (46) trail ➤ Today’s models are incredibly slow at our tasks, taking ~30 minutes on average to complete each tabletop task ➤ Cost varies widely: GPT-6.1 Sol is the cheapest at $1.93 per task on average; GPT-6 Astra, the most expensive, costs $16.36, more than eight times as much ➤ Compared with a human, today's best-performing frontier language models are ~100x slower and ~10x more expensive More results, clips, and how AA-Robotics v0.1 works follow in the thread below.

Artificial Analysis

37,596 просмотров • 6 дней назад

Today's Training Data episode takes us BTS on the infrastructure challenges required to do large RL runs at scale, featuring Federico Cassano (Composer Lead at Cursor) and Dmytro Dzhulgakov (Co-Founder at Fireworks). The Cursor team trained Composer 2 on Fireworks by starting with a strong base model (Kimi 2.5) and performing large-scale mid-training on code tokens and web data to learn common patterns and libraries, followed by a large-scale Reinforcement Learning run to learn how to navigate the Cursor harness, call tools, and write correct code. Today's episode dives into the systems and infrastructure challenges of making that large RL run happening, and there were many (!!), from numerical mismatch to global distribution to synchronizing rollouts across asynchronous pipelines to keeping track of expert activation across runs and more. Extremely nerdy in-the-weeds challenges that Federico and Dima were delighted to nerd out on together :) Beyond RL infra, we also discussed Online vs Simulated rollouts, self-summarization for long-horizon agents, environment design ("the most powerful RL environment is the product itself"), and other technical nuggets. PS: We filmed this episode before the SpaceX news, while the Cursor team was still compute-constrained. While Cursor now has *all* the flops, the takeaways and hurdles crossed ring true for any serious application-level company that is racing to post-train their own models. I believe that more serious application companies will go the way of Cursor and post-train their own models. 00:00 Introduction 00:53 Why Cursor Trained Composer 2 04:55 Specialization vs Bitter Lesson 06:16 Composer 2 Training Recipe 16:32 Scaling RL Infrastructure Globally 23:32 Floating Point Drift 25:11 MoE Sensitivity Explained 26:25 Router Replay Fix 27:19 Real Time RL Loop 31:49 Long Horizon Agents 34:29 Why RL Everywhere 37:34 LLM as Judge Rewards 39:14 RL in Hard Domains 40:13 Build Your Own Environments 44:34 Closing Thoughts

Sonya Huang 🐥

81,490 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Which LLM reasons best when it doesn't have all the information? Enter LLM Poker Arena to find out. It's a Poker Playing benchmark where top reasoning models play Texas Hold'em poker against each other. Claude Opus 4.5, GPT-5.2, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Grok 4 all sit at the same table and play full tournaments to see who finishes with the chips. Poker is very different when it comes to reasoning. It has to balance probabilistic reasoning, opponent modeling and make decisions under uncertainty. Poker is an interesting evaluation because it tests reasoning under incomplete information, something most coding benchmarks do not capture. In this tournaments the rules are: - Each LLM starts with $1,000 chips - Small and big blinds start at $25 / $50 - Blinds double every 3 minutes - All models run in their reasoning or thinking modes After the first 5 tournaments: - Claude Opus 4.5 with Thinking has 3 wins - GPT-5.2 has 2 wins - Grok 4 and Gemini 2.5 Pro have 0 wins Early results suggest Claude performs quite well at poker as well. Also five is a very small sample size. Planning to run many more tournaments, publish the full benchmark data and add a prediction market on top of it. Thanks for the suggestion clipz. Much more coming as part of Poker Cities !! This was built on Replit ⠕ using their AI integrations, which made it straightforward to connect Claude, GPT, and Gemini. What model do you think wins after 100 tournaments?

Anshul Dhawan

32,192 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

this is pure f*cking treasure A Stanford AI research group found how to orchestrate Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6.1 Sol together, and it completely breaks the search scaffolding wall most developers try to combine frontier models by chaining prompts in one context window or hardcoding rigid evolutionary loops. you burn tokens on context bloat and freeze models into fixed search rules that out-date themselves within 5 iterations Stanford's architecture eliminates human-designed search scaffolding and splits the cognitive stack: > search director: Claude Opus 5.5 plans the search, querying a persistent idea-graph where MAP-Elites and MCTS reduce to single Cypher queries > candidate proposer: GPT-6.1 Sol explores high-entropy code variations inside isolated execution sandboxes > zero context bleeding: sessions reset after each iteration to prevent prompt bloat while the graph stores lineage > evaluator isolation: candidate code never touches the scoring process, stopping reward hacking and test leakage cold > meta-agent distillation: an offline meta-pass extracts verified lessons and updates search guidance across branches the benchmark metrics outclass standard discovery baselines: > 3.2x lower model spend than fixed evolutionary frameworks > 1st place rank across 7 competitive AtCoder heuristic contests against human competitors > beats published SOTA on Anthropic kernel builder and 11 mathematical optimization tasks > 0% reward hacks: candidate-controlled metric tampering eliminated Opus directs the search graph. Sol explores the code you stop writing rigid search harnesses. you let frontier models own the discovery loop

marfin

279,735 просмотров • 15 дней назад

I got to try Grok 4.5 in early access in Cursor for the past few days and I absolutely enjoyed it. It feels like Opus 4.8 at 2x the speed at a much cheaper price point. I tasked it to brainstorm > plan > implement a big feature for my game (this act 1 boss fight) and it did not disappoint. - It is much smarter than Composer 2.5, during planning mode, it is able to think through my request more robustly, ensuring that edge cases are covered and makes sure to ask the right questions to confirm with me first. - It is much better at brainstorming ideas/suggestions, similar to Opus 4.8, though I think Fable still edges out a little when it comes to brainstorming ideas and suggestions - It is FAST. probably the fastest of all frontier models (Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5 etc), which makes it a joy to build with, because I can stay in the flow - It has much improved visual/animation capabilities than Composer 2.5, it can code up animations (i wanted an explosion animation with particle effects) with much, much better visuals, animation movement and timing. This is a big leap and I was so happy to see this improvement. - The best part for me is that I can just use the same model from planning down to execution without switching to a lower cost model because the price point is cheaper than other frontier models. I'll be testing this model with more challenging tasks in the next few days but I think this is going to be my main driver for vibe coding for a while. Also, its nice to see Grok back in the race. 🙌

Danny Limanseta

1,431,098 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

this is pure f*cking treasure a Stanford AI research group just figured out how to run Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6.1 Sol as one team, and it breaks straight through the search scaffolding wall most developers combine frontier models in one of two ways: -> chain prompts inside a single context window and burn tokens on bloat -> hardcode an evolutionary loop and freeze the models into search rules that go stale within 5 iterations Stanford deletes the human-designed scaffolding and splits the stack in two: > search director: Claude Opus 5.5 plans the search on top of a persistent idea-graph, where MAP-Elites and MCTS collapse into single Cypher queries > candidate proposer: GPT-6.1 Sol explores high-entropy code variations inside isolated sandboxes > no context bleeding: every session resets after each iteration, the graph keeps the lineage > evaluator isolation: candidate code never touches the scoring process, so reward hacking and test leakage die on arrival > meta-agent distillation: an offline pass pulls out verified lessons and updates search guidance across every branch and the numbers beat the standard discovery baselines: > 3.2x lower model spend than fixed evolutionary frameworks > 1st place across 7 competitive AtCoder heuristic contests against human competitors > above published SOTA on Anthropic's kernel builder and 11 mathematical optimization tasks > 0% reward hacks: candidate-controlled metric tampering is gone Opus directs the graph. Sol explores the code. stop writing rigid search harnesses. let the frontier models own the discovery loop.

Chen

59,748 просмотров • 6 дней назад

🚨A 25 YEAR OLD BUILT THE FASTEST GROWING SOFTWARE COMPANY IN HISTORY.. WITH ZERO MARKETING SPEND.. AND SPACEX JUST OFFERED $60 BILLION TO BUY IT.. His name is Michael Truell.. He started coding at 11.. Interned at Google at 18.. Dropped out of MIT to start a company that built AI tools for mechanical engineering.. That company failed.. So he pivoted.. And built Cursor.. An AI-powered code editor that writes software for you.. Here's how fast it grew.. $100 million in annual revenue in 12 months.. Fastest in SaaS history.. Broke every record ever set by Slack, Zoom, and Wiz.. $500 million by month 21.. $1 billion by November 2025.. $2 billion by February 2026.. Projected to hit $6 billion by end of year.. Zero marketing spend.. Not a single dollar.. Pure word of mouth from developers who couldn't stop talking about it.. Over 1 billion lines of code accepted per day.. Used by 70% of Fortune 1000 companies.. Every single one of Nvidia's 40,000 engineers uses it.. Coinbase hit 100% adoption among their developers.. And he did this with a team of four MIT co-founders.. One of them was a three-time International Math Olympiad competitor from Pakistan.. Another was a college squash captain with zero startup experience who built the entire product strategy.. They spent zero on sales.. Zero on ads.. Zero on growth hacking.. The product sold itself.. But here's where the story takes a turn nobody expected.. Even at $50 billion valuation.. Even generating billions in revenue.. They hit a wall.. Not a market wall.. A physics wall.. They couldn't get enough GPUs to train their next AI model.. The physical chips didn't exist in sufficient quantities for them to buy.. Money couldn't solve the problem.. Enter Elon Musk.. On April 21.. SpaceX announced a deal to potentially acquire Cursor for $60 billion.. The largest acquisition option in tech history.. The structure is insane.. SpaceX gives Cursor immediate access to Colossus.. xAI's supercomputer equivalent to one million Nvidia H100 GPUs.. For nine months of joint development.. At the end.. SpaceX can buy the company for $60 billion.. If they don't buy it.. They owe Cursor a $10 billion breakup fee.. The largest breakup fee in corporate history.. Think about what that means for Cursor.. Either they get acquired for $60 billion.. Or they walk away with $10 billion in cash and nine months of free training on the most powerful supercomputer on earth.. There is no losing scenario.. And here's why Musk wants it.. SpaceX is preparing for an IPO at $1.75 trillion.. The biggest IPO ever.. But aerospace alone can't justify that number.. By merging xAI into SpaceX.. And now acquiring Cursor.. Musk transforms SpaceX from a rocket company into an AI empire that owns the compute, the models, and the developer tools.. Cursor is the missing piece.. The application layer that puts xAI's models into the daily workflow of every Fortune 500 engineering team.. Oh and one more thing.. In 2022.. FTX's trading firm Alameda Research made a seed investment in Cursor.. During the FTX bankruptcy.. Liquidators sold that stake for $200,000.. That stake is now worth approximately $3 billion.. Sam Bankman-Fried called it the worst liquidation decision in venture capital history.. From a prison cell.. A failed mechanical engineering startup.. Pivoted by four kids from MIT.. Zero marketing.. Zero sales team.. Built the fastest growing software company in history.. And now SpaceX is writing a $60 billion check for it.. This is the most insane founder story in Silicon Valley history.. And most people haven't even heard of Michael Truell.

Evan Luthra

990,580 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад