Comment by quesera
2 months ago
I've gone many cycles deep, some of which have resulted in incremental improvements.
Probably one of my mistakes is testing it with toy challenges, like bad interview questions, instead of workaday stuff that we would normally do in a state of half-sleep.
The latter would require loading the entire project into context, and the value would be low.
My thought with the former is that it should be able to produce working versions of industry standard algorithms (bubble sort, quicksort, n digits of pi, Luhn, crc32 checksum, timezone and offset math, etc) without requiring any outside context (proprietary code) -- and perhaps erroneously, that if it fails to pull off such parlor tricks, and creates such glaring errors in the process, that it couldn't add value elsewhere either.
Why are you hesitating to load all the context you need (Cursor will start from a couple starting-point files you explicitly add the context window and then go track other stuff down). It's a machine. You don't have to be nice to it.
Just the usual "is this service within our trust perimeter" hesitation, when it comes to sharing source code.
I expected to get better results from my potted tests, and to assemble a justification for expanding the perimeter of trust. This hasn't happened yet, but I definitely see your point.
Presumably it would also be possible to hijack Cursor's network desires and redirect to a local LLM that speaks the same protocol.