zlacker

[return to "Cursor's latest “browser experiment” implied success without evidence"]
1. emp173+qw[view] [source] 2026-01-16 17:06:17
>>embedd+(OP)
This is why AI skeptics exist. We’re now at the point where you can make entirely unsubstantiated claims about AI capability, and even many folks on HN will accept it with a complete lack of discernment. The hype is out of control.
◧◩
2. embedd+4x[view] [source] 2026-01-16 17:09:06
>>emp173+qw
> folks on HN will accept it with a complete lack of discernment

Well, I'm a heavy LLM user, I "believe" LLM helps me a lot for some tasks, but I'm also a developer with decades of experience, so I'm not gonna claim it'll help non-programmers to build software, or whatever. They're tools, not solutions in themselves.

But even us "folks on HN" who generally keep up with where the ecosystem is going, have a limit I suppose. You need to substantiate what you're saying, and if you're saying you've managed to create a browser, better let others verify that somehow.

◧◩◪
3. emp173+Cx[view] [source] 2026-01-16 17:11:44
>>embedd+4x
Take a look at this thread regarding the original claim: >>46624541

The top comment is indeed baseless hype without a hint of skepticism.

◧◩◪◨
4. embedd+Qz[view] [source] 2026-01-16 17:22:02
>>emp173+Cx
The second top comment is my own (skeptical) comment, with 20 points at this moment. Thanks to those 20 people, I felt compelled to write the blog-post in this submission, and try to ask a bit clearer "what is going on?", since apparently we're at least 20 people who is wondering about this.

There is also clearly a lot of other skeptical people in that submission too. Also, simonw (from that top comment) told me themselves "it's not clear that what they built even runs": https://bsky.app/profile/simonwillison.net/post/3mckgw4mxoc2...

[go to top]