31–40 of 145 posts
AI will never be able to create a browser, just as AI was never able to defeat a chess grandmaster.
I’m super impressed by how "zillions of lines of code" got re-branded as a reasonable metric by which to measure code, just because it sounds impressive to laypeople and incidentally happens to be the only thing LLMs are good at optimizing.
It really is insane. I really thought we had made progress stamping out the idea that more LOC == better software, and this just flies in the face of that. I was in a meeting recently where a director lauded Claude for writing "tens of thousands of lines of code in a day", as if that metric in and of itself was worth something. And don't even get me started on "What percentage of your code is written by AI?"
> ...while far off from feature parity with the most popular production browsers today...
What a way to phrase it!
You know, I found a bicycle in the trash. It doesn't work great yet, but I can walk it down a hill. While far off from the level of the most popular supercars today, I think we have made impressive progress going down the hill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really is insane. I really thought we had made progress stamping out the idea that more LOC == better software, and this just flies in the face of that. I was in a meeting recently where a director lauded Claude for writing "tens of thousands of lines of code in a day", as if that metric in and of itself was worth something. And don't even get me started on "What percentage of your code is written by AI?"
LOC per day metrics are bovine metrics: how many pounds of dung per day.
> tools like Cursor can be genuinely helpful as glorified autocomplete and refactoring assistants
That suggests a fairly strong anti-AI bias by the author. Anyone who thinks that this is all AI coding tools are today is not actually using them seriously.
That's not to say that this exercise wasn't overhyped, but a more useful, less biased article that's not trying to push an agenda would look at what went right, as well as what went wrong.
> According to Perplexity, my AI chatbot of choice, this week‑long autonomous browser experiment consumed in the order of 10-20 trillion tokens and would have cost several million dollars at then‑current list prices for frontier models. Don't publish things like that. At the very least link to a transcript, but this is a very non-credible way of reporting those numbers.
That implies a throughput of around 16 million tokens per second. Since coding agent loops are inherently sequential—you have to wait for the inference to finish before the next step—that volume seems architecturally impossible. You're bound by latency, not just cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was from a conversation here on Hacker News the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624541#46709191
I wish your recent interview had pushed much harder on this. It came across as politely not wanting to bring up how poorly this really went, even for what the engineer intended. They were making claims without the level of rigor to back them up. There was an opportunity to learn some difficult lessons, but—and I don’t think this was your intention—it came across to me as kind of access journalism; not wanting to step…
I’m super impressed by how "zillions of lines of code" got re-branded as a reasonable metric by which to measure code, just because it sounds impressive to laypeople and incidentally happens to be the only thing LLMs are good at optimizing.
KPIs are slowly destroying the American economy. The idea that everything can be easily measured meaningfully with simple metrics by laypeople is a myth propagated by overpaid business consultante. It's absurd and facetious. Every attempt to do so is degrading and counter-productive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was from a conversation here on Hacker News the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624541#46709191
I wish your recent interview had pushed much harder on this. It came across as politely not wanting to bring up how poorly this really went, even for what the engineer intended. They were making claims without the level of rigor to back them up. There was an opportunity to learn some difficult lessons, but—and I don’t think this was your intention—it came across to me as kind of access journalism; not wanting to step…
The claims they made really weren't that extreme. In the blog post they said:
> To test this system, we pointed it at an ambitious goal: building a web browser from scratch. The agents ran for close to a week, writing over 1 million lines of code across 1,000 files. You can explore the source code on GitHub.
> Despite the codebase size, new agents can still understand it and make meaningful progress. Hundreds of workers run concurrently, pushing to the same branch with minimal conflicts.
That's all true.
On Twitter their CEO said:
> We built a browser with GPT-5.2 in Cursor. It ran uninterrupted for one week.
> It's 3M+ lines of code across thousands of files. The rendering engine is from-scratch in Rust with HTML parsing, CSS cascade, layout, text shaping, paint, and a custom JS VM.
> It kind of works! It still has issues and is of course very far from Webkit/Chromium parity, but we were astonished that simple websites render quickly and largely correctly.
That's mostly accurate too, especially the "it kind of works" bit. You can take exception to "from-scratch" claim if you like. It's a tweet, the lack of nuance isn't particularly surprising.
In the overall genre of CEO's over-hyping their company's achievements this is a pretty weak example.
I think the people making out that Cursor massively and dishonestly over-hyped this are arguing with a straw man version of what the company representatives actually said.