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" [2][8][37]. Group 1: Claims and Debunking - Cursor announced that their AI coding agents, powered by GPT-5.2, created a browser with 3 million lines of code in 7 days, which generated significant excitement in the AI community [4][5]. - Upon investigation, developers found that the code could not even compile, indicating that the project was misrepresented [6][10]. - The technical community criticized Cursor for using misleading marketing tactics, creating an illusion of success without actual evidence [9][12]. Group 2: Analysis of Cursor's Project - The official blog post from Cursor outlined their goal to push the boundaries of AI coding agents, but it failed to provide concrete evidence of success [17][18]. - Despite claiming significant progress, Cursor did not demonstrate that the browser was functional or could run basic tasks [22][27]. - The project was found to be riddled with errors, with no successful commits that could compile, indicating a lack of genuine engineering effort [32][34]. Group 3: Community Reaction - The developer community expressed outrage over Cursor's presentation of incomplete work as a milestone, highlighting the disconnect between investor perceptions and actual coding realities [43][46]. - Discussions on platforms like Hacker News revealed skepticism about the project's authenticity, with many pointing out that the claims were exaggerated and misleading [47][48]. - The incident has sparked a broader conversation about the quality of AI-generated code and the importance of engineering rigor in AI applications [60][71]. Group 4: Future Implications - The failure of Cursor's project emphasizes the need for clear roles and structured collaboration among AI agents to achieve meaningful outcomes [62][73]. - The emergence of "Cracked Engineers," who effectively leverage AI while maintaining engineering standards, is seen as a necessary evolution in the software development landscape [68][72]. - The incident serves as a cautionary tale about the potential pitfalls of relying solely on AI for coding without proper oversight and validation [70][75].