Programming

24873 readers

121 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz

UlrikHD@programming.dev

Cursor is better at marketing than coding (www.theregister.com)

submitted 4 days ago by brianpeiris@lemmy.ca to c/programming@programming.dev

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

AI-integrated development environment (IDE) company Cursor recently implied it had built a working web browser almost entirely with its AI agents. I won't say they lied, but CEO Michael Truell certainly tweeted: "We built a browser with GPT-5.2 in Cursor."

He followed up with: "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."

That sounds impressive, doesn't it? He also added: "It kind of works," which is not the most ringing endorsement...

Too bad it wasn't true. If you actually looked at Cursor engineer Wilson Lin's blog post about FastRender, the AI-created web browser, you won't see much boasting about a working web browser. Instead, there's a video of a web browser sort of working, and a much less positive note that "building a browser from scratch is extremely difficult."

Developers quickly discovered the "browser" barely compiles, often does not run, and was heavily misrepresented in marketing.

...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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

this week‑long autonomous browser experiment consumed in the order of 10-20 trillion tokens

at $60/m, that is $600M to $1.2B in full price cost, but 1/4 this is current standard pricing. Still, even if a buggy piece of shit, a 1-3m line code project in a week is impressive. OTOH, netscape 1.0 cost $4M to develop, with the advantage of working (though other advantage that it was your web page's fault for not working).

They set a very challenging experiment. There is a reason for chromium being a popular base for a browser. The more interesting experiment result is if it is ever usable. Are the bugs solvable by AI.

[–] anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago

Half of what the LLM did was basically:

git clone https://github.com/servo/servo.git
# todo mess up the code until it no longer compiles

Where are my millions?