It kinda blows my mind that this is possible, to build a browser engine that approximates a somewhat working website renderer.
Even if we take the most pessimistic interpretation of events ( heavy human steering, relies on existing libraries, sloppy code quality at places, not all versions compile etc)
The positive views are mostly from people who point out that what matters in the end is what the code does, not what it looks like, e.g. users don't see the code, nor do they care about the code, and that even for businesses who do care, LLMs may be the ones who have to pay down any technical debt that builds up.
* Anyone in a field where mistakes are expensive. In one project, I asked the LLM to code-review itself and it found security vulnerabilities in its own solutions. It's probably still got more I don't know about.
** In the original sense of just letting the LLM do whatever it wanted in response to the prompt, never reading or code reviewing the result myself until the end.
That is true in a way, although even for agents readability matters.
But the code here does not actually do the right thing, and the way it is written also means it never could.
Web devs do care whether the engine runs their code according to Web standards(otherwise it's early IE all over), and end-users do care that websites work as their devs intended to.
Current state is throw-away level quality.
I've critiqued it at length in the other post, see >>46705625