And everyone has, YC alone has funded at least four Cursor clones, Double, Void, Continue and Pear, with Pear being a literal fork of Continue's OSS code. AFAICT Cursor isn't even the original, I think Copilot X was the first of its kind and Cursor cloned that.
Turns out they’re all just elaborate feature branches, in a giant branch-stacking-PR, and they’re all going to merge code and funding, like some kind of VC-money-fuelled-power-ranger.
I wonder whether so many clones companies funded can eventually bring in a positive return when (if) a single company manages to rise above the others and become successful. Does anybody know if yc funding is publicly available? And how to know what return they get if a company gets ipo'd?
It depends on who the moat is supposed to keep out. A reasonable case from an antitrust regulator would be that if a provider of models/apis gleans the prompts from the users of the apis to build competing products... they are in trouble.
Good prompts may actually have a moat - a complex agent system is basically just a lot of prompts and infra to co-ordinate the outputs/inputs.
> Good prompts may actually have a moat - a complex agent system is basically just a lot of prompts.
The second part of that statement (is wrong and) negates the first.
Prompts aren’t a science. There’s no rationale behind them.
They’re tricks and quirks that people find in current models to increase some success metric those people came up with.
They may not work from one model to the next.
They don’t vary that much from one another.
They, in all honesty, are not at all difficult or require any real skill to make. (I’ve worked at 2 AI startups and have seen the Apple prompts, aider prompts, and continue prompts)
Just trial and error and an understanding of the English language.
Moreover, a complex agent system is much more than prompts (the last AI startup and the current one I work at are both complex agent systems). Machinery needs to be built, deployed, and maintained for agents to work. That may be a set of services for handling all the different messaging channels or it may be a single simple server that daisy chains prompts.
Those systems are a moat as much as any software is.
That prompts aren't science means little. If anything it makes them more important because you can't systematically arrive at good ones.
If one spends a lot of time building an application to achieve an actual goal they'll realize the prompts make a gigantic difference and it takes an enormous amount of fiddly, annoying work to improve. I do this (and I built an agent system, which was more straightforward to do...) in financial markets. It so much so that people build systems just to be able to iterate on prompts (https://www.promptlayer.com/).
I may be wrong - but I'll speculate you work on infra and have never had to build a (real) application that is trying to achieve a business outcome. I expect if you did, you'd know how much (non sexy) work is involved on prompting that is hard to replicate.
Hell, papers get published that are just about prompting!
> If anything it makes them more important because you can't systematically arrive at good ones
Important and easy to make are not the same
I never said prompts didn’t matter, just that they’re so easy to make and so similar to others that they aren’t a moat.
> I may be wrong - but I'll speculate you work on infra and have never had to build a (real) application that is trying to achieve a business outcome.
You’re very wrong. Don’t make assumptions like this. I’ve been a full stack (mostly backend) dev for about 15 years and started working with natural language processing back in 2017 around when word2vec was first published.
Prompts are not difficult, they are time consuming. It’s all trial and error. Data entry is also time consuming, but isn’t difficult and doesn’t provide any moat.
> that is hard to replicate.
Because there are so many factors at play _besides prompting. Prompting is the easiest thing to do in any agent or RAG pipeline. it’s all the other settings and infra that are difficult to tune to replicate a given result. (Good chunking of documents, ensuring only high quality data gets into the system in the first place, etc)
Not to mention needing to know the exact model and seed used.
Nothing on chatgpt is reproducible, for example, simply because they include the timestamp in their system prompt.
> Good prompts -> good output -> good training data -> good model.
This is not correct at all. I’m going to assume you made a mistake since this makes it look like you think that models are trained on their own output, but we know that synthetic datasets make for poor training data. I feel like you should know that.
A good model will give good output. Good output can be directed and refined with good prompting.
It’s not hard to make good prompts, just time consuming.
> but we know that synthetic datasets make for poor training data
This is a silly generalization. Just google "synthetic data for training LLMs" and you'll find a bunch of papers on it. Here's a decent survey: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.07503
It's very likely o1 used synthetic data to train the model and/or the reward model they used for RLHF. Why do you think they don't output the chains...? They literally tell you - competitive reasons.
Arxiv is free, pick up some papers. Good deep learning texts are free, pick some up.