zlacker

>>embedd+(OP)
The amount of negativity in the original post was astounding.

People were making all sorts of statements like: - “I cloned it and there were loads of compiler warnings” - “the commit build success rate was a joke” - “it used 3rd party libs” - “it is AI slop”

What they all seem to be just glossing over is how the project unfolded: without human intervention, using computers, in an exceptionally accelerated time frame, working 24hr/day.

If you are hung up on commit build quality, or code quality, you are completely missing the point, and I fear for your job prospects. These things will get better; they will get safer as the workflows get tuned; they will scale well beyond any of us.

Don’t look at where the tech is. Look where it’s going.

>>ryanis+Gd1
As mentioned elsewhere (I'm the author of this blogpost), I'm a heavy LLM user myself, use it everyday as a tool, get lots of benefits from it. It's not a "hit post" on using LLM tools for development, it's a post about Cursor making grand claims without being able to back them up.

No one is hung up on the quality, but there is a ground fact if something "compiles" or "doesnt". No one is gonna claim a software project was successful if the end artifact doesn't compile.

>>embedd+5e1
I think for the point of the article, it appeared to, at some point, render homepages for select well known sites. I certainly did not expect this to be a serious browser, with any reliability or legs. I don’t think that is dishonest.