So I'm guessing as a result of this, FAANG and similar companies are going to have free access while the little guy will be left out.

Is there any concrete information on whether this would be an application process or perhaps for companies that meet certain criteria?

I'm on 0.139.0 on Linux and my visible ~/.codex/logs are only about 129 MB.

This makes me even more conservative on upgrading these tools every time they prompt me to. Better to let them get a few miles on them and see how the community responds.

In this case it sounds like 0.142.0 reduced the issue but didn't fully settle it. I'll wait for 0.143.0+ and see if that version is more acceptable.

Cursor was my first hands-on experience with AI. I didn't know much about getting set up with specific providers via API, and Cursor made it easy to pick any model, ask a question about some code, and get a clear suggested answer easily viewable in the IDE with an 'accept' or 'reject' button. I think they answered this question well: "How do normal developers want to interact with AI?"

I moved away from Cursor when I noticed the responses from specific models were not as clean or accurate as when I'd prompt the models directly, which was something I didn't know how to do early on. I hypothesized that they had some boilerplate prompt sitting atop of my own, causing less precise or desirable results.

I would assume Cursor is still one of the best options for normal developers to get started with AI, but with Copilot forcing their foot in the door at many companies, I wasn't sure how well it would fare on its own. Being acquired by SpaceX should help, and I'll be interested to follow along and see how things develop.

> Being acquired by SpaceX should help

Why? (Genuinely curious, I would have assumed the opposite)

My opinion is that the publicity can only help Cursor. I don't necessarily think SpaceX would make Cursor better. Copilot (which I view as a direct competitor to Cursor) has a huge structural advantage. I have several friends in various American companies where Microsoft products are all they are allowed to use. They get "free" Copilot access as a part of their Microsoft plans. Developers aren't having Cursor placed right in front of them in the same way Copilot is, and from my experience, when developers have the choice to pick one, they pick Cursor. So, I just feel the SpaceX/xAI publicity could help Cursor get more visibility in these general American software companies more so than they could on their own.

Great post. It was an amusing read, and quite the discovery! Good work, and great job documenting it.

Unfortunate to see AI police as top comment on a good amusing post!

Given how easy it was to get our own version of an AI service tool set up, I'm shocked to see a huge, capable company buying it's way into that functionality as opposed to using their large existing datasets to fine-tune an internal tool. Is 3.6B really the better option?

PAX ERP. An AI-assisted ERP for small regulated/job shop manufacturers that have outgrown QuickBooks and can't afford (or take the time) to go through a traditional ERP implementation.

PAX is the easiest ERP to pick up. Our core idea is that ERP should not take weeks of formal training and implementation. We have no formal training, no implementation fees, and are a complete ERP+CRM GAAP accounting system. It's intuitive, well-documented, AI-assisted (never steered), and people can pick it up and start using it well with no questions to our team.

Having used and watched others use Fable, it's clear to me that the standard of care for these models done by Anthropic pre-release was nothing like their previous releases. It seemed like shortcuts were taken to get it released. Maybe the models are changing faster than their team can adapt, and maybe the government responded as quickly as they did because of their relationship with Anthropic. Regardless, I think regulation was appropriate here. Anthropic can take the time to refine and improve their internal models to have a more successful release next time. It is normal for the government to restrict potentially dangerous companies if the level of care seems below what is acceptable in the US. We've seen it a lot recently with FAA grounding rocket companies. I don't feel it is cruel treatment just cause it's Anthropic

How was this release more rushed than previous ones?

I have the opposite impression using Fable, behavior-wise it is much more polished than Opus 4.7 was at launch.

I think it felt more polished, otherwise they wouldn't have released it. Fable took more shortcuts, lied more, had stabilizing safeguards removed, and just did what it wanted more than other models.

It's good to see companies thoroughly testing these models in ways that could be used against them, but this should've been something Anthropic did more of before releasing it in the first place. The standard they used for releasing Fable seems much lower than previous releases.

The skill floor for attackers has collapsed, and I think regulation against Anthropic is appropriate here - as much as I am generally against regulation!