zlacker

>>scared+(OP)
(Cursor cofounder)

Apologies - something very clearly went wrong here. We’ve already begun investigating, and some very early results:

* Any AI responses used for email support are now clearly labeled as such. We use AI-assisted responses as the first filter for email support.

* We’ve made sure this user is completely refunded - least we can do for the trouble.

For context, this user’s complaint was the result of a race condition that appears on very slow internet connections. The race leads to a bunch of unneeded sessions being created which crowds out the real sessions. We’ve rolled out a fix.

Appreciate all the feedback. Will help improve the experience for future users.

>>mntrue+1F4
Hi Michael,

Slightly related to this; I just wanted to ask whether all Cursor email inboxes are gated by AI agents? I've tried to contact Cursor via email a few times in the past, but haven't even received an AI response :)

Cheers!

>>hakane+3M4
Not all of them (e.g. security@)! But our support system currently is. We are standing up a much bigger team here but are behind where we should be.

>>mntrue+DM4
Can you please explain why something as basic as getting support needs to go through an AI?

Are you truely that cheap? Is this why it took you guys 3 months to get a basic contract back to us?

>>Snakes+VP4
Good human support is expensive. You need support agents and people that educate and manage those. It's not easy to scale up and down usually. People also hate waiting times.

AI fixes most of that... Most of the time? Clearly not, but hey.

>>carste+KZ4
AI doesn't fix any of that because it's not good. For example, you can easily reduce waiting times to 0 with human support by replying "can't help" to every request. So unless you have good AI support, the fact that it can reduce waiting time is not an improvement.

Same with scaling- what's hard is scaling good quality, not just scaling, so without good AI you've again gained nothing