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.
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
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?