6 ms·

> Cursor Composer 1 was Qwen and this is Kimi. IDE is based on VSCode. The entire company is build on packaging open source and reselling it. The question is,

> Cursor Composer 1 was Qwen and this is Kimi. IDE is based on VSCode. The entire company is build on packaging open source and reselling it. The question is, where's the outrage? Why are there no headlines "USA steals Chinese tech?" "All USA can do is make a cheap copy of Chinese SOTA models". > So funny to see Twitter go wild saying "a 50 person team just beat Anthropic" blah blah. Well, if it's an American company, then it's a noble underdog story. When Chinese do it, they are thieves leeching on the US tech investment. It's all so predictable, even the comments here.

chzblck 7mo ago
because its open source.
- miroljub 7mo ago
  A license doesn't matter if the perpetrator doesn't comply with it.
- elashri 7mo ago
  Open source licence requires attribution which obviously it is not done in this case.
  - iknowstuff 7mo ago
    No it doesn’t? Depends on the license
    - elashri 7mo ago
      I doubt that there is any open source license that don't require attribution but we are talking about a specific case and the license require it [1] [1] https://huggingface.co/moonshotai/Kimi-K2.5/blob/main/LICENSE https://huggingface.co/moonshotai/Kimi-K2.5/blob/main/LICENS...
- thefounder 7mo ago
  Like licenses are worth anything in the AI world…
Tostino 7mo ago
I mean, I (and a ton of others) were pretty outspoken about ollama being a pack of grifters. The thing they are good at is marketing though, so it drowns out other projects in the area.
hakunin 7mo ago
Do you think Chinese LLMs acquired training data legitimately? I think the whole situation is a bit funny, but I don't think the US "started it" to be fair.
- fooster 7mo ago
  I mean as if anthropic and openai did.
- geocar 7mo ago
  > Do you think Chinese LLMs acquired training data legitimately? I think they probably acquire it in accordance with Chinese law. > but I don't think the US "started it" to be fair. Who are you quoting with those marks? Started what? To be fair to whom?
  - hakunin 7mo ago
    > I think they probably acquire it in accordance with Chinese law. You can easily look up[1] how China struggles with effective enforcement of IP laws. And specifically for LLMs, Anthropic recently claimed that Chinese models trained on it without permission.[2] > Who are you quoting with those marks? Double quote marks have other uses besides direct quotes, such as signaling unusual usage.[3] In this case, talking about countries like they're squabbling kids. > Started what? Fishy use of others' IP, packaging others' work without attribution. > To be fair to whom? To US companies using Chinese LLMs without attribution. --- [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_intellectual_property_infringement_by_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_intellectual_pr... [2]: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinese-companies-used-claude-improve-own-models-anthropic-says-2026-02-23/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinese-companies-used-c... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_marks_in_English#Signalling_unusual_usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_marks_in_English#Sig...
    - satvikpendem 7mo ago
      They said Chinese law, which is not the same as American law, and presumably using IP the way they have is legal there, if indeed they actually did, as allegations of IP theft are just that, allegations, and even if they weren't, all nations in the history of mankind have been "stealing" "intellectual property" since forever, including the US from Britain, literally with the good graces of the fledgling US government [0]. As to what Anthropic said, it's quite specious as this analysis shows [1], ie the amount of "exchanges" is only tantamount to a single day or two of promoting, not nearly enough to actually get good RL training data from. Regardless, it's not as if other American LLM companies obtained training data legitimately, whatever that means in today's world. [0] https://theworld.org/stories/2014/02/18/us-complains-other-nations-are-stealing-us-technology-america-has-history https://theworld.org/stories/2014/02/18/us-complains-other-n... [1] https://youtu.be/_k22WAEAfpE https://youtu.be/_k22WAEAfpE
MangoCoffee 7mo ago
yup. fully agree. American cry and bitch about Chinese copy and steal their tech then an American company (Cursor) use/steal open source tech from China and everyone is silence.
muzani 7mo ago
If American policies stay this way, we'll see "Made in USA. Designed in Beijing."

chzblck 7mo ago

because its open source.

miroljub 7mo ago
A license doesn't matter if the perpetrator doesn't comply with it.
elashri 7mo ago
Open source licence requires attribution which obviously it is not done in this case.
- iknowstuff 7mo ago
  No it doesn’t? Depends on the license
  - elashri 7mo ago
    I doubt that there is any open source license that don't require attribution but we are talking about a specific case and the license require it [1] [1] https://huggingface.co/moonshotai/Kimi-K2.5/blob/main/LICENSE https://huggingface.co/moonshotai/Kimi-K2.5/blob/main/LICENS...
thefounder 7mo ago
Like licenses are worth anything in the AI world…

Tostino 7mo ago

I mean, I (and a ton of others) were pretty outspoken about ollama being a pack of grifters. The thing they are good at is marketing though, so it drowns out other projects in the area.

hakunin 7mo ago

Do you think Chinese LLMs acquired training data legitimately? I think the whole situation is a bit funny, but I don't think the US "started it" to be fair.

fooster 7mo ago
I mean as if anthropic and openai did.
geocar 7mo ago
> Do you think Chinese LLMs acquired training data legitimately? I think they probably acquire it in accordance with Chinese law. > but I don't think the US "started it" to be fair. Who are you quoting with those marks? Started what? To be fair to whom?
- hakunin 7mo ago
  > I think they probably acquire it in accordance with Chinese law. You can easily look up[1] how China struggles with effective enforcement of IP laws. And specifically for LLMs, Anthropic recently claimed that Chinese models trained on it without permission.[2] > Who are you quoting with those marks? Double quote marks have other uses besides direct quotes, such as signaling unusual usage.[3] In this case, talking about countries like they're squabbling kids. > Started what? Fishy use of others' IP, packaging others' work without attribution. > To be fair to whom? To US companies using Chinese LLMs without attribution. --- [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_intellectual_property_infringement_by_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_intellectual_pr... [2]: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinese-companies-used-claude-improve-own-models-anthropic-says-2026-02-23/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinese-companies-used-c... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_marks_in_English#Signalling_unusual_usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_marks_in_English#Sig...
  - satvikpendem 7mo ago
    They said Chinese law, which is not the same as American law, and presumably using IP the way they have is legal there, if indeed they actually did, as allegations of IP theft are just that, allegations, and even if they weren't, all nations in the history of mankind have been "stealing" "intellectual property" since forever, including the US from Britain, literally with the good graces of the fledgling US government [0]. As to what Anthropic said, it's quite specious as this analysis shows [1], ie the amount of "exchanges" is only tantamount to a single day or two of promoting, not nearly enough to actually get good RL training data from. Regardless, it's not as if other American LLM companies obtained training data legitimately, whatever that means in today's world. [0] https://theworld.org/stories/2014/02/18/us-complains-other-nations-are-stealing-us-technology-america-has-history https://theworld.org/stories/2014/02/18/us-complains-other-n... [1] https://youtu.be/_k22WAEAfpE https://youtu.be/_k22WAEAfpE

MangoCoffee 7mo ago

yup. fully agree. American cry and bitch about Chinese copy and steal their tech then an American company (Cursor) use/steal open source tech from China and everyone is silence.

muzani 7mo ago

If American policies stay this way, we'll see "Made in USA. Designed in Beijing."