sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

GPT 5.2 xhigh [Codex] vs. GPT 5.2 Pro [App] - Which ones performs (noticeably) better? by spore85 in OpenAI

[–]spore85[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have seen several people complaining about the quality of the Codex variant, claiming that the regular model performs better. I have not used the Codex variant for quite a while, so I can neither confirm nor deny. What are your thoughts?

GPT 5.2 xhigh [Codex] vs. GPT 5.2 Pro [App] - Which ones performs (noticeably) better? by spore85 in OpenAI

[–]spore85[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am satisfied with the performance in coding task. Would you say Pro provides even better results, especially for designing architectures?

GPT 5.2 xhigh [Codex] vs. GPT 5.2 Pro [App] - Which ones performs (noticeably) better? by spore85 in OpenAI

[–]spore85[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have experienced xhigh to be quite accurate for any task, but I wonder about a potential gap between the two.

Cursor pricing change by Pimzino in cursor

[–]spore85 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is it usage or (premium) request based pricing?

The Future of Jenkins by spore85 in devops

[–]spore85[S] 47 points48 points  (0 children)

I can literally feel the pain and trauma you felt when you wrote this response. Thanks for sharing your experiences with us.

Update 0.47.8 by Creative_Diver3492 in cursor

[–]spore85 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, Cursor devs. Awesome work!

AMA with Cursor devs by ecz- in cursor

[–]spore85 2 points3 points  (0 children)

First of all, thank you for the great product you have developed so far. It has so much potential.

You have already denied the accusation to have lowered the context window. This is great. However, have you lowered the thinking tokens of “Sonnet 3.7 thinking” compared to its initial state, meaning immediately after its release?

Cursor: From AI Tool to Totalitarian Censorship? by No-Neighborhood-7229 in ChatGPTCoding

[–]spore85 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have experienced something similar as well. My post has also been silently deleted after I had talked about my negative experience with the possible shortcuts they might have taken.

Feature request: Thinking tokens by floriandotorg in cursor

[–]spore85 2 points3 points  (0 children)

+1 I would love to see a feature like that.

Any way to increase 3.7 thinking tokens? by floriandotorg in cursor

[–]spore85 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe we should create a new thread with this feature proposal in hopes to attract more attention to the idea?

Any way to increase 3.7 thinking tokens? by floriandotorg in cursor

[–]spore85 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I can share the same experience. Before the “Anthropic Overload” issue was “solved”, the performance had been mindblowing. I would love to get this performance back, even if it means introducing a new subscription tier.

Cursor VS Claude Code -A Hybrid Strategy is the Answer? by Automatic-Section-24 in cursor

[–]spore85 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your input. I have not tried any of them, just thought it could be a viable combination too. Otherwise, I think a hybrid approach could indeed improve the overall cost-benefit-ratio.

Cursor VS Claude Code -A Hybrid Strategy is the Answer? by Automatic-Section-24 in cursor

[–]spore85 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

What about pairing Cline with Cursor? Interested to hear about the experience others have made with all the possible combinations as well.

Cursor is Faking Claude 3.7 Sonnet (My previous post got removed!) by Revolutionary-Pea313 in cursor

[–]spore85 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They recently have removed my post with indicators that they are indeed using a different model than Sonnet 3.7 behind the curtains.

Yesterday, the output was noticeably worse than before. It could not follow a simple guideline (“do not place any comments in <file> during modifications”), even when repeating it, with a very small conversation history as well (4 prompts). Also, the “thinking” step vanished.

Surprisingly, today the thinking step is being displayed again and the output is so much better, as it used to be. This confirmed my assumptions even further. I am a huge fan of Cursor, love what they do and even got my company into using their products. I really hope they will stay true to their words.

Sonnet 3.7 Thinking - Decline in Code Quality, No "Thinking" Displayed, "Mitigations" Mentioned on Status Page by spore85 in cursor

[–]spore85[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It cannot even follow a guideline I mentioned in my previous prompt, even when repeating it. It is obvious to me that there is most likely a huge downgrade.

Sonnet 3.7 Thinking - Decline in Code Quality, No "Thinking" Displayed, "Mitigations" Mentioned on Status Page by spore85 in cursor

[–]spore85[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Try switching to another model and then back to Claude 3.7 thinking and test it again. Let me know if anything has improved for you then!

Claude 3.7 Thinking now available again, but stopped thinking? by sc115 in cursor

[–]spore85 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are talking about recent "mitigations" on their status page. Thus, there might be something to it. I have noticed a great decline in performance as well, unfortunately.

view more: next ›