zlacker

>>embedd+(OP)
Key phrase "They never actually claim this browser is working and functional " This is what most AI "successes" turn out to be when you apply even a modicum of scrutiny.

>>josefr+lq
In my personal experience, Codex and Claude Code are definitively capable tools when used in certain ways.

What Cursor did with their blogpost seems intentionally and outright misleading, since I'm not able to even run the thing. With Codex/Claude Codex it's relatively easy to download it and run it to try for yourself.

>>embedd+ws
"definitively capable tools when used in certain ways". This sounds like "if it doesn't work for you is because you don't use in the right way" imo.

Reminds me of SAAP/Salesforce.

>>netdev+gw
Yes, many tools work like that, especially professional tools.

You think you can just fire up Ableton, Cubase or whatever and make as great music as a artist who done that for a long time? No, it requires practice and understanding. Every tool works like this, some different difficulties, some different skill levels, but all of them have it in some way.

>>embedd+Ax
This is the company making the tool that is holding the tool, in this case, claiming that "[they] built a browser" when, if TFA's assertions are correct, they did not "build a browser" by any reasonable interpretation of those words.

(I grant that you're speaking from your experience, about different tools, two replies up, but this claims is just paper-rock-scissorable through these various AI tools. "Oh, this tool's authors are just hype, but this tool works totes-mc-oates…". Fool me once, and all.)