[throw444420394]

What to understand of this whole story:

This is a vibe coded agent that is replicable in little time. There is no value in the technology itself. There is value in the idea of personal agents, but this idea is not new.

The value is in the hype, from the perspective of OpenAI. I believe they are wrong (see next points)

We will see a proliferation of personal agents. For a short time, the money will be in the API usage, since those agents burn a lot of tokens often for results that can be more sharply obtained without a generic assistant. At the current stage, not well orchestrated and directed, not prompted/steered, they are achieving results by brute force.

Who will create the LLM that is better at following instructions in a sensible way, and at coordinating long running tasks, will have the greatest benefit, regardless of the fact the OpenClaw is under the umbrella of OpenAI or not.

Claude Opus right now is the agent that works better for this use case. It is likely that this will help Anthropic more than OpenAI. It is wise, for Anthropic, to avoid burning money for an easily replicable piece of software.

Those hypes are forgotten as fast as they are created. Remember Cursor? And it was much more a true product than OpenClaw.

Soon, personal agents will be one of the fundamental products of AI vendors, integrated in your phone, nothing to install, part of the subscription. All this will be irrelevant.

In the mean time, good for the guy that extracted money from this gold mine. He looks like a nice person. If you are reading this: congrats!

(throw away account of obvious reasons)

[bmay]

> Those hypes are forgotten as fast as they are created. Remember Cursor?

of course--i use it every day. are you implying Cursor is dead? they raised $2B in funding 3 months ago and are at $1B in ARR...

[throw444420394]

It was a success for the company, but it is unlikely to survive long term. Now people are all focusing on Claude Code and Codex. Cursor is surviving because there are many folks that can't survive a terminal session. And because we are still in a transition stage where people look at the code, but will look at the code every day less, and more at the results and the prompts. And at the quality of the agent orchestration / tools. I don't believe the Cursor future will be bright. Anyway: my example was about how fast things are forgotten in this space.

[rvz]

> Remember Cursor?

Who?

> are you implying Cursor is dead? they raised $2B in funding 3 months ago and are at $1B in ARR

That is the problem. It doesn't matter about how much they raised. That $2B and that $1B is paying the supplier Anthropic and OpenAI who are both directly competing against them.

Cursor is operating on thin margins and still continues to losing money. It's now worse that people are leaving Cursor for Claude Code.

In short, Cursor is in trouble and they are funding their own funeral.

[koakuma-chan]

What does VSCode fork spend 2 billion dollars on?

[flyinglizard]

I think Cursor is doing pretty well in the enterprise space. It seems much more useful than just throwing agents upon subagents on an unsuspecting task like Claude Code.

[throw444420394]

Cursor is fine, the example is about how things go out of hype in very little time. However I believe Cursor will not survive much. It is designed around a model that will not survive: that the AI "helps you writing code", and you review, and need an IDE like that. There are many developers that want an IDE and can't stand the terminal experience of Claude Code and Codex, but I don't believe most developers in the future will inspect closely the code written by the AIs, and things like Cursor will look like products designed for a transition step that is no longer here (already).