zlacker

[return to "Cursor's latest “browser experiment” implied success without evidence"]
1. ankit2+qj1[view] [source] 2026-01-16 20:32:28
>>embedd+(OP)
Like it or not, it's a fundraising strategy. They have followed it mutliple times (eg: vague posts about how much their inhouse model is writing code, online RL, and lines of code etc. earlier) and it was less vague before. They released a model and did not give us the exact benchmarks or even tell us the base model for the same. This is not to imply there is no substance behind it, but they are not as public about their findings as one would like them to be. Not a criticism, just an observation.
◧◩
2. themaf+fl1[view] [source] 2026-01-16 20:41:40
>>ankit2+qj1
I don't like it. It's lying in order to capture more market value than they're entitled to. The ends do not justify the means. This is a criticism.
◧◩◪
3. emp173+mN1[view] [source] 2026-01-16 23:39:43
>>themaf+fl1
Basically, fraud. Low-level fraud, but still fraud.
◧◩◪◨
4. nerdpo+pl2[view] [source] 2026-01-17 06:18:39
>>emp173+mN1
Fraud is just marketing in the 2020s now.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. skciva+Um2[view] [source] 2026-01-17 06:45:58
>>nerdpo+pl2
I'm not a fan of this either but I fail to see how its much different than the happy path tech demos of old.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. drawfl+wN2[view] [source] 2026-01-17 12:29:28
>>skciva+Um2
The happy path was functional.
[go to top]