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. ben_w+gf3[view] [source] 2026-01-17 16:22:42
>>ryanis+Gd1
> 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.

The reason I have yet to publish a book is not because I can't write words. I got to 120k words or so, but they never felt like the right words.

Nobody's giving me (nor should they give me) a participation trophy for writing 120k words that don't form a satisfying novel.

Same's true here. We all know that LLMs can write a huge quantity of code. Thing is, so does:

  yes 'printf("Hello World!");'
The hard part, the entire reason to either be afraid for our careers or thrilled we can switch to something more productive than being code monkeys for yet-another-CRUD-app (depending on how we feel), that's the specific test that this experiment failed at.
[go to top]