zlacker

[return to "Cursor's latest “browser experiment” implied success without evidence"]
1. ryanis+Gd1[view] [source] 2026-01-16 20:05:40
>>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.

◧◩
2. array_+4F1[view] [source] 2026-01-16 22:38:06
>>ryanis+Gd1
Spending 24h/day to build nothing isn't impressive - it's really, really bad. That's worse than spending 8h/day to build nothing.

If the piece of shit can't even compile, it's equivalent to 0 lines of code.

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

Given that the people making the tech seem incapable of not lying, that doesn't give me hope for where it's going!

Look, I think AI and LLMs in particular are important. But the people actively developing them do not give me any confidence. And, neither do comments like these. If I wanted to believe that all of this is in vain, I would just talk to people like you.

[go to top]