As mentioned elsewhere (I'm the author of this blogpost), I'm a heavy LLM user myself, use it everyday as a tool, get lots of benefits from it. It's not a "hit post" on using LLM tools for development, it's a post about Cursor making grand claims without being able to back them up.

No one is hung up on the quality, but there is a ground fact if something "compiles" or "doesnt". No one is gonna claim a software project was successful if the end artifact doesn't compile.

▲

ryanisnan 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I think for the point of the article, it appeared to, at some point, render homepages for select well known sites. I certainly did not expect this to be a serious browser, with any reliability or legs. I don’t think that is dishonest.

▲

embedding-shape 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> I certainly did not expect this to be a serious browser, with any reliability or legs.

Me neither, and I note so twice in the submission article. But I also didn't expect a project that for the last 100+ commits couldn't reliably be built and therefore tested and tried out.

	▲	ryanisnan 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My apologies - my point(s) were more about the original submission for the Cursor blog post, not your post itself. I did read your post, and agree with what you're saying. It would be great if they pushed the agents to favour reliability or reproducibility, instead of just marching forwards.