Cursor一夜翻车，AI 300万代码写浏览器被打假！全网群嘲「AI泔水」

Core Viewpoint - The claims made by Cursor regarding the development of a browser using GPT-5.2 have been debunked, revealing that the code produced is non-functional and lacks engineering logic, described as "AI Slop" [4][7][35]. Group 1: Project Claims and Findings - Cursor announced that their AI coding agents, powered by GPT-5.2, generated a browser with 3 million lines of code over 168 hours [3][4]. - The project was marketed as a breakthrough, suggesting that AI could autonomously create complex software [4][5]. - However, developers found that the code could not even compile, indicating that the project was misrepresented [5][9][30]. Group 2: Technical Analysis - A technical blog dissected Cursor's claims, revealing that the code lacked coherent engineering intent and was essentially unusable [7][36]. - The analysis showed that the GitHub repository had multiple failed builds and numerous compiler errors, indicating that the project had never been in a runnable state [30][32]. - The lack of a successful commit or demonstrable functionality further undermined Cursor's assertions of progress [52][53]. Group 3: Community Reaction - The developer community reacted strongly against Cursor's misleading claims, expressing frustration over the portrayal of incomplete work as a significant achievement [41][44]. - Discussions on platforms like Hacker News highlighted the deceptive nature of the project's marketing, with many pointing out the reliance on existing libraries rather than true innovation [45][46]. - The incident has sparked a broader conversation about the integrity of AI-generated code and the importance of verifiable results in software development [41][68]. Group 4: Lessons and Future Implications - The failure of the Cursor project illustrates the necessity for clear role definitions and structured collaboration among AI agents to avoid chaos in software development [58][59]. - The emergence of the term "Cracked Engineer" reflects a shift towards valuing skilled developers who can effectively leverage AI while maintaining rigorous engineering standards [64][68]. - The incident serves as a cautionary tale about the potential pitfalls of over-relying on AI without proper oversight and validation [67][69].