Cursor implemented something a while back where it started acting like how ChatGPT does when it's in its auto mode.

Essentially, choosing when it was going to use what model/reasoning effort on its own regardless of my preferences. Basically moved to dumber models while writing code in between things, producing some really bad results for me.

Anecdotal, but the reason I will never talk about Cursor is because I will never use it again. I have barred the use of Cursor at my company, It just does some random stuff at times, which is more egregious than I see from Codex or Claude.

ps. I know many other people who feel the same way about Cursor and other who love it. I'm just speaking for myself, though.

ps2. I hope they've fixed this behavior, but they lost my trust. And they're likely never winning it back.

Don’t use the “auto” model and you will be fine.

You just described their “auto” behavior, which I’m guessing uses grok.

Using it with specific models is great, though you can tell that Anthropic is subsidizing Claude Code as you watch your API costs more directly. Some day the subsidy will end. Enjoy it now!

And cursor debugging is 10x better, oh my god.

I have switched to 70% Claude Code, 10% Copilot code reviews (non anthropic model), and 20% Cursor and switch the models a bit (sometimes have them compete — get four to implement the same thing at the same time, then review their choices, maybe choose one, or just get a better idea of what to ask for and try again).

> get four to implement the same thing at the same time, then review their choices

Why would you do that to yourself? Reviewing 4 different solutions instead of 1 is 4 times the amount of work.

You wouldn't do that for everything. I'd reserve it for work with higher uncertainty, where you're not sure which path is best. Different model families can make very different choices.

Yes, this exactly.

Also, if there is a ui design then they could look wildly different.

I rarely use this feature, but when appropriate, it is fantastic to see the different approaches.

Same here. Auto mode is NOT ok. Sadly, smaller models cannot be trusted with access to Bash.

I used to love Cursor but as I started to rely on agent more and more it just got way too tedious having to Accept every change.

I ended up spending time just clicking "Accept file" 20x now and then, accepting changes from past 5 chats...

PR reviews and tying review to git make more sense at this point for me than the diff tracking Cursor has on the side.

Cancelling my cursor before next card charge solely due to the review stuff.

You can disable this if you want, it's under "Inline Diffs" in the Cursor settings.

In the coworking I am in people are hitting limits on 60$ plan all the time. They are thinking about which models to use to be efficient, context to include etc…

I’m on claude code $100 plan and never worry about any of that stuff and I think I am using it much more than they use cursor.

Also, I prefer CC since I am terminal native.

Tell them to use the Composer 1.5 model. It's really good, better than Sonnet, and has much higher usage limits. I use it for almost all of my daily work, don't have to worry about hitting the limit of my 60$ plan, and only occasionally switch to Opus 4.6 for planning a particularly complex task.

Cursor tends to bounce out of plan mode automatically and just start making changes (while still actually in plan mode). I also have to constantly remind it “YOU ARE IN PLAN MODE, do not write a plan yet, do not edit code”. It tends to write a full-on plan with one initial prompt instead of my preferred method of hashing out a full plan, details, etc… It definitely takes some heavy corralling and manual guardrails but I’ve had some success with it. Just keep very tight reins on your branches and be prepared to blow them away and start over on each one.

I love to build a plan, then cycle to another frontier model to iterate on it.