Yes, any Cursor sub includes a separate tier of usage for Cursor/SpaceX first party models separate from usage of third party models.
I have a $20 Cursor sub still personally and would say that the usage for Grok models is much higher than what $20 gets you with Anthropic. I can't speak for the $100 plan but I would assume it scales similarly.
I rarely run out of my usage monthly even with the $20 plan.
I'm on the $20 plan too and the only time I run over is if I'm using Opus (or probably other third-party models). Grok and Composer seem nearly free at this point. Cursor also gave me a $100 credit for Grok after 81% of my usage was on TP models. I don't think Grok 4.6 is quite at the level of Opus 5, but it's close and so much faster (and less chatty).
It's a little confusing because Grok and Cursor kinda live in different worlds. Grok has SuperGrok and SuperGrok Heavy ($300 a month!)
The best bet is Cursor Ultra ($200), which is the equivalent a month plan that you get from OpenAI and Anthropic. I get a LOT more capacity out of it because I almost always use the "Auto" mode, which auto picks between Opus 5, GPT 5.6, Grok 4.6, and Composer 2.5.
I like Auto mode so much actually. I use it for my Cursor work account as well because it's about 10x faster than just using Opus 5 or GPT 5.6 and about 90% is good. I switch back to the bigger models if I get in trouble, but that's pretty rare.
Vibe coding requires some discipline. You need understand what it's trying to do. If you have a good mental model you can keep it out of trouble. If you don't, it doesn't matter how good the model is. You're gonna end up in a mess.
Yes it does. You can either subscribe to grok directly or cursor.
You have many tiers and all of them have generous usage.
Grok is a workhorse, not the smartest yet, but produces good code and follows the plan.
Grok 5, which has been training since beginnig of this year, will probably be a monster. (10T/6T Param model variants)
To prove that there are unnamable concepts, he uses cantor's diagonal argument. There are countably infinite names. Any subset of these names is a concept, which is same as the powerset of the set of names, and through cantor's diagonal argument, there are uncountably infinite concepts, most which are not namable.
Yes you can take a specific concept, and name it, but there are uncountably infinitely many, so even with infinite time, you cannot name them all.
I belive we can do regular software much better using formal methods, and I want to better communicate the developing tools, learnings and methodology.
Would appreciate a quick reaction from the community.
reply