this was for claude code i believe

Only because last time they tried to hide it lol

Yes and if I remember the drama correctly - Kimi's license or terms of use says that for commercial use cases (or was it user count?) - you must declare credit to Moonshot and Kimi.

It's important to mention: they were compliant, because they trained the model at an AI hosting provider that had a partnership with Moonshot AI, but Moonshot didn't know Cursor was a customer.

This was misinformed Twitter and Reddit drama.

They had properly licensed it and were complying with the terms of the license.

Note that something that helped the misinformation was that, on Twitter, there were Kimi employees expressing their surprise that the base model was Kimi K2.5, and their indignation that Cursor didn't credit Kimi. They later deleted their tweets (what I infer from that is that some employees were not aware of some pre-existing agreement or understanding between Cursor and Kimi until the drama happened).

How can distilled opus become better than original? There are numbers of reports including anthropic that kimi team was participating in fraudulent activities

Do we know the "fraudulent " requests really came from moonshot engineers and was not QA team running a ton of benchmarks against other models?

I feel distilling something as big as Opus would require many many more samples, but I dont really know much about this subject

sure, sounds like QA lol

Scale: Over 3.4 million exchanges

The operation targeted:

Agentic reasoning and tool use Coding and data analysis Computer-use agent development Computer vision Moonshot (Kimi models) employed hundreds of fraudulent accounts spanning multiple access pathways. Varied account types made the campaign harder to detect as a coordinated operation. We attributed the campaign through request metadata, which matched the public profiles of senior Moonshot staff. In a later phase, Moonshot used a more targeted approach, attempting to extract and reconstruct Claude’s reasoning traces.

And when you here unsubstantiated rumours* that ­say Anthropic has been sending exchanges to say Alibaba's Qwen, will you als oconclude the same about the entire US AI industry?

I doubt it.

* publish the logs.

Even if it's true, it's not like US AI companies can complain, given their entire business is based on ripping off text without attribution

chinese ai is not doing the same? or they don't parse?

they do except they also send thousands of sex-spies to do espionage of this kind on the scale.

Of course they’re also doing this, my point is this is a grubby business where ethics went out of the window a long time ago.

If you’re playing this game in 2026 you know the rules - anything goes

"they also send thousands of sex-spies"

Could they send one (or two) my way?

They are constantly training and getting rid of older models, they are losing money

Which part of "over model lifetime" did you not understand?

That's not a sufficient condition for profitability if both inference and scaling costs continue to increase over time.

have you got a link to this?

Sorry, I got the author wrong.

It's here: https://github.com/tmustier/pi-for-excel

5.2 Codex is up there with claude lmao

Agree, but it seems dependent on field. One day I wanted a browser extension made, and 5.2-codex-max added hundreds of lines of code several times, and for 15-20 iterations I did not change one thing, or even have an opinion on what it was doing. This is extremely uncommon for other models for me, even Opus I would say. And yes, I mostly do small green-field things and not even that works all the time, even if LLMs are clearly at their best there.

Not likely at all, people pay for convenience. They don't want to do that

Yeah hackernews users kept thinking the average consumers like to tinker like we do lol