Comment by IMTDb
3 hours ago
> The initial software Pump and Dump event could be considered when Cursor burned through millions of dollars to build a barely working browser. Naturally there was no way to finish such a monstrous heap of software into a working product and why would anybody use a vibe coded browser anyway? The "dump" on their end was to use this as marketing bait and a way to inflate their valuation.
Let me introduce you to the wonderful world of "research." It's what happens when you're willing to spend money on things without immediate, obvious ROI. The real value often comes not from the resulting product, but from the lessons learned along the way. I also don't see what's wrong with showcasing the results of your experiments. How many developers have implemented a toy ray tracer and put it on their personal GitHub? No one in their right mind believes Pixar will use it for their next renderer, but should we conclude those people are inflating their CVs with bait? Or can we acknowledge it's a cool project to undertake, and pulling it off requires real skill? If individuals are welcome to do this, why can't organizations? I want to see more "we did a fun thing, here are the results." There's a playfulness in that approach I find refreshing. Just because it comes from a for-profit company doesn't make it cynical.
It was only through external review that the problems with the project were discovered, and the blog post was clearly written for marketing as it hardly shared any actual details about the result other than an unexplained video they called a screenshot. Good faith research would have pointed out the limitations of their system
I don't think that most research starts with the idea of being a crypto rugpull. Many research labs and startups fail, and that is fine, you dont have to double down and drag a bunch of people into the mud with you because of that, which is what a lot of the example the author points to.
In some sense I just feel like this is another way to gamble, which in general is seeing an unprecedented growth with Polymarket and the likes. There is less faith in white-collar skills making you rich, so you just try your luck.
[dead]
> but from the lessons learned along the way
When the published "lessons" don't match up with what the experiment actually did, that's when people start asking questions. Is not just "boo it didn't work", but there is a vast mismatch between what the research actually answered, and what they claimed it answered.
This is a stunning false equivalency and is an irresponsible comparison.
You've made an emotional declaration, without an argument to justify it. For instance, it would be helpful to understand why you think it's a false equivalency, and in what way it is irresponsible.
If you want to contribute something to the discussion, do that, rather than just saying that you don't like the parent's argument, that's what the down button is for.
The initial tweet was primarily a lie though
> The rendering engine is from-scratch in Rust with HTML parsing, CSS cascade, layout, text shaping, paint, and a custom JS VM.
If I cloned Pixar’s rendering library and called that then added to my CV ‘built a renderer from scratch’ this would be entirely dishonest…
I use LLMs often and don’t hate Cursor or think they’re a bad company. But it’s obvious they are being squeezed and have little USP (even less so than other AI players). They are frankly extremely pressured to make up lies.
I don’t think I’d resist the pressure either, so not on a high horse here, but it doesn’t make it any less dishonest.
Lmaooo
You think the 30 billion dollar VSCode fork company is vibe coding a broken browser because it’s fun?
Cute.
> Just because it comes from a for-profit company doesn't make it cynical.
I thought only AI bots were born yesterday.