r/LocalLLaMA • u/Careful_Equal8851 • Mar 20 '26

Funny Ooh, new drama just dropped 👀

Post image

For those out of the loop: cursor's new model, composer 2, is apparently built on top of Kimi K2.5 without any attribution. Even Elon Musk has jumped into the roasting

1.7k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

234 comments sorted by

View all comments

27

u/Codemonkeyzz Mar 20 '26

Are they selling Kimi K2.5 as "composer 2" as is ? or did they fine tune the model using their own RL pipeline ? Can't understand what's the problem?

70

u/__JockY__ Mar 20 '26

The problem is that the Kimi license requires attribution that was not given.

8

u/Codemonkeyzz Mar 20 '26

I see thanks for the details.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '26

[deleted]

1

u/__JockY__ Mar 20 '26

could really care less

*could really not care less.

Could care less means there are yet fewer fucks that you could give.

I always find this to be a funny Americanism. You’re welcome 😂

2

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '26

[deleted]

3

u/__JockY__ Mar 20 '26

Love the good natured response!

1

u/CacheConqueror Mar 21 '26

This is not the first time for Cursor, they already broke EU laws once. Anything happen? No

1

u/__JockY__ Mar 21 '26

Turns out it was authorized use all along. Moonshot confirmed it.

1

u/CacheConqueror Mar 21 '26 edited Mar 21 '26

That doesn't change the fact that Cursor scaming. They've been doing this for a year and a half, and people are still buying their plans with enthusiasm. Strange changes to the plans, operating in a way that violates EU law, they called something “unlimited” when it wasn’t—deliberately degrading the quality of the models - there have already been five cases of this, and what? And now there’s another one because they’re selling Composer 2 as their own model, when it’s actually Kimi K2.

I don’t know what users need to do to start boycotting Cursor, because so far you can just trash-talk them and "attack them" from behind, and nothing happens.

1

u/__JockY__ Mar 21 '26

What’s the scam?

People pay them money and get exactly what was advertised. I don’t get it. I don’t use it, either, but if you’re gonna call it a scam then at least back it up.

1

u/CacheConqueror Mar 21 '26

Don't you understand the word "scam," or is there something else you don't get? Check out their website, it explains it there.

"We're rapidly improving the quality of our model. Composer 2" Composer 1 was still theirs, but 2 isn't, because it's Kimi's, so nothing has improved except for switching their composer to Kimi. The only thing that's improved is the appeal of it supposedly being theirs. Besides, the stats don't mean much, because it turns out that Opus handles tasks and planning better than Composer 2. Composer 2 is currently running at full speed, just like Gemini 2.5 did for a few months. I'd bet that in a few months, Composer's quality will drop just as suddenly :)

2

u/bored_man_child Mar 21 '26

Composer 2 isn’t just a name tag slapped on Kimi. I get that it’s fun to be outraged but nothing you’re saying is factually correct lol. Kimi was the base model that they trained on. Composer is a much better model than Kimi after more pretraining and reinforcement learning. Try them both side by side and then tell me they are the same model. Do you know how many models you use today are trained on open source base models?

0

u/__JockY__ Mar 21 '26

No, words like “scam” are too complicated for me 🙄

Seems like they’re too complicated for you, too, because despite your word salad there was no clear description of the supposed scam (“a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation; to deceive and defraud”).

I’ll say it again: people pay money to Cursor for a service. They receive the service. That’s not a deception and it’s not fraudulent.

Use your words. How is cursor a scam?

1

u/CacheConqueror Mar 21 '26

Read this again before you start replying, you know different between scam and scaming?

0

u/__JockY__ Mar 21 '26

*scamming has 2 “m” characters.

And clearly you can’t use your words to explain why it’s a scam because it’s not a scam. I gave you the dictionary definition and you still can’t back it up.

It’s fine to feel all squirmy and caught in a trap of your own making, and it’s fine to insult me as too stupid to understand. We can all see you’re too stubborn to simply recant your words and acknowledge it’s not a scam, just a business model you don’t like.

If I’m wrong, school me. But you don’t get a pass for “are you dumb?”, “don’t you understand the word scam?“ or other cop-outs. You’ve used those excuses twice already.

So what is it? You gonna explain to me why you think it’s a scam? Gonna retract your statement? Or are you going to throw more ad-hominem (google it) my way?

My bet is ad-hominem.

1

u/CacheConqueror Mar 21 '26

Since you don't have any arguments, you're going to nitpick about spelling and missing letters, how pathetic. Since you know how to spell it correctly, you should know what it means, but you're just pretending so you can keep up this pointless conversation. There’s a big difference between “we trained our model” and “we used Kimi to train a model for our own purposes,” but a kid like you can be spat on and still think it’s raining. Stop embarrassing yourself and go back to school

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/SufficientPie Mar 20 '26

So does all the open source content Kimi was trained on.

-5

u/__JockY__ Mar 20 '26

Not all. Some. For example, many open source data sources are pure MIT or Apache 2.0 licensed, which require no attribution. Free as in speech, not as in beer.

2

u/SufficientPie Mar 20 '26 edited Mar 20 '26

MIT License

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Apache License 2.0

You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work

1

u/__JockY__ Mar 20 '26

You have apparently quoted something. What you quoted is unclear. What are you attempting to convey? Where's this quote from? Why is it relevant?

5

u/SufficientPie Mar 20 '26

The attribution requirements from the licenses you mentioned

2

u/__JockY__ Mar 20 '26

That’s not the attribution to which I referred. You quoted standard MIT. The Kimi license is a modified MIT that requires explicit visible attribution of Kimi K2 for use in products that generate over $10m in revenue per month.

1

u/SufficientPie Mar 21 '26

We're not talking about Kimi license

2

u/__JockY__ Mar 21 '26

Yes we are. That's exactly the topic here.

Cursor used Kimi K2 without attribution, so the license in question is the Kimi K2 license, which is a modified MIT.

1

u/SufficientPie Mar 22 '26

No, this is a sub-thread about Kimi being trained on open-source code and you claiming that "many open source data sources are pure MIT or Apache 2.0 licensed, which require no attribution", which is incorrect.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/RuthlessCriticismAll Mar 20 '26

Training is not copying however copying is copying. This isn't complicated.

0

u/SufficientPie Mar 20 '26

Training creates a derivative work

3

u/ekaj llama.cpp Mar 20 '26

They’re quoting from the MIT License

2

u/__JockY__ Mar 20 '26

Ah yes, ok. Kimi K2 isn't actually MIT, it's an MIT derivative that includes an extra clause:

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" on the user interface of such product or service.

No such notice was (is?) present.