Yes, and apparently is a horrible way, because they've obviously failed to produce a functioning browser. But since I'm the author of TFA, I guess I'm kind of biased in this discussion.

Codex was sold to me as a tool that can help me do program. I tried it, evaluated it, found it helpful, continued using it. Based on my experience, it definitively helps with some tasks. Apparently also, it does not work for others, for some not at all. I know the tool works for me, and I take the claim that it doesn't for others, what am I left to believe in? That the tool doesn't actually work, even though my own experience and usage of it says otherwise?

Codex is still an "AI success", regardless if it could build an entire browser by itself, from scratch, or whatever. It helps as it is today, I wouldn't need it to get better to continue using it.

But even with this perspective, which I'd say is "nuanced" (others would claim "AI zealot" probably), I'm trying to see if what Cursor claims is actually true, that they managed to build a browser in that way. When it doesn't seem true, I call it out. I still disagree with "This is what most AI "successes" turn out to be when you apply even a modicum of scrutiny", and I'm claiming what Cursor is doing here is different.

The argument isn't what OpenAI/Anthropic are selling their users, what I said was:

> are definitively capable tools when used in certain ways

Which I received pushback on. My reply is to that pushback, defending what I said, not what others told you.

Edit: Besides the point, but Ableton (and others) constantly tell people how to learn how to use the tool, so they use it the right way. There is a whole industry of people (teachers) who specialize in specific software/hardware and teaching others "how to hold the tool correctly".