zlacker

>>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.

>>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.

>>themaf+fl1
Basically, fraud. Low-level fraud, but still fraud.

>>emp173+mN1
Fraud is just marketing in the 2020s now.

>>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.

>>skciva+Um2
The happy path was functional.

>>drawfl+wN2
Mmm, as someone forced to write a lot of last minute demos for a startup right out of school that ended up raising ~100MM, there's a fair bit of wiggle room in "Functional".

Not that I would excuse Cursor if they're fudging this either - My opinion is that a large part of the growing skepticism and general disillusionment that permeates among engineers in the industry (ex - the jokes about exiting tech to be a farmer or carpenter, or things like https://imgur.com/6wbgy2L) comes from seeing first hand that being misleading, abusive, or outright lying are often rewarded quite well, and it's not a particularly new phenomenon.

>>horsaw+qS2
But this isn’t wiggle room, it flat out doesn’t compile or run.

>>drawfl+Q33
Yes. Very naive to assume the demos do.

The worst of them are literal mockups of a feature in the same vein as figma... a screenshot with a hotzone that when clicked shows another screenshot that implies a thing was done, when no such thing was done.