I shared my LLM predictions last week, and one of them was that by 2029 "Someone will build a new browser using mainly AI-assisted coding and it won’t even be a surprise" https://simonwillison.net/2026/Jan/8/llm-predictions-for-202... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVDhQMiAbR8&t=3913s

This project from Cursor is the second attempt I've seen at this now! The other is this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/Anthropic/comments/1q4xfm0/over_chr...

I'm not sure the approach of "completely autonomous coding" is the right way to go. I feel like maybe we'll be able to use it more effectively if we think of them as something to be used by a human to accomplish some thing instead, lean into letting the human drive the thing instead, because quality spirals so quickly out of control.

The implied future here is _unreal cool_. Swarms of coding agents that can build anything, with little oversight. Long-running projects that converge on high-quality, complex projects.

But the examples feel thin. Web browsers, Excel, and Windows 7 exist, and they specifically exist in the LLM's training sets. The closest to real code is what they've done with Cursor's codebase .... but it's not merged yet.

I don't want to say, call me when it's merged. But I'm not worried about agents ability to produce millions of lines of code. I'm worried about their ability to intersect with the humans in the real world, both as users of that code and developers who want to build on top of it.

I started looking in the Cargo.toml to at least get an idea how the project was constructed. I saw there that rather than being built from scratch as the post seemed to imply that almost every core component was simply pulled in from an open source library. quickjs engine, wgpu graphics, winit windowing & input, egui for ui, html parsing, the list goes on. On twitter their CEO explicitly stated that it uses a "custom js vm" which seemed particularly misleading / untrue to me.

Integrating all of these existing components is still super impressive for these models to do autonomously, so I'm just at a loss how to feel when it does something impressive but they then feel the need to misrepresent so much. I guess I just have a lot less respect and trust for the cursor leadership, but maybe a little relief knowing that soon I may just generate my own custom cursor!

I think any large piece of software with well established standards and test suites will be able to be quickly rewritten and optimized by coding agents.

[1] https://github.com/sberan/tjs

[2] /spawn-perf-agents claude command: https://github.com/sberan/tjs/blob/main/.claude/commands/spa...

> Another experiment was doing an in-place migration of Solid to React in the Cursor codebase. It took over 3 weeks with +266K/-193K edits. As we've started to test the changes, we do believe it's possible to merge this change.

In my view, this post does not go into sufficient detail or nuance to warrant any serious discussion, and the sparseness of info mostly implies failure, especially in the browser case.

It _is_ impressive that the browser repo can do _anything at all_, but if there was anything more noteworthy than that, I feel they'd go into more detail than volume metrics like 30K commits, 1M LoC. For instance, the entire capability on display could be constrained to a handful of lines that delegate to other libs.

And, it "is possible" to merge any change that avoids regressions, but the majority of our craft asks the question "Is it possible to merge _the next_ change? And the next, and the 100th?"

If they merge the MR they're walking the walk.

If they present more analysis of the browser it's worth the talk (not that useful a test if they didn't scrutinize it beyond "it renders")

Until then, it's a mountain of inscrutable agent output that manages to compile, and that contains an execution pathway which can screenshot apple.com by some undiscovered mechanism.

What is `FrameState::render_placeholder`?

``` pub fn render_placeholder(&self, frame_id: FrameId) -> Result<FrameBuffer, String> { let (width, height) = self.viewport_css; let len = (width as usize) .checked_mul(height as usize) .and_then(|px| px.checked_mul(4)) .ok_or_else(|| "viewport size overflow".to_string())?;

    if len > MAX_FRAME_BYTES {
      return Err(format!(
        "requested frame buffer too large: {width}x{height} => {len} bytes"
      ));
    }

    // Deterministic per-frame fill color to help catch cross-talk in tests/debugging.
    let id = frame_id.0;
    let url_hash = match self.navigation.as_ref() {
      Some(IframeNavigation::Url(url)) => Self::url_hash(url),
      Some(IframeNavigation::AboutBlank) => Self::url_hash("about:blank"),
      Some(IframeNavigation::Srcdoc { content_hash }) => {
        let folded = (*content_hash as u32) ^ ((*content_hash >> 32) as u32);
        Self::url_hash("about:srcdoc") ^ folded
      }
      None => 0,
    };
    let r = (id as u8) ^ (url_hash as u8);
    let g = ((id >> 8) as u8) ^ ((url_hash >> 8) as u8);
    let b = ((id >> 16) as u8) ^ ((url_hash >> 16) as u8);
    let a = 0xFF;

    let mut rgba8 = vec![0u8; len];
    for px in rgba8.chunks_exact_mut(4) {
      px[0] = r;
      px[1] = g;
      px[2] = b;
      px[3] = a;
    }

    Ok(FrameBuffer {
      width,
      height,
      rgba8,
    })
  }

What is it doing in these diffs?

https://github.com/wilsonzlin/fastrender/commit/f4a0974594e3...

I'd be really curious to see the amount of work/rework over time, and the token/time cost for each additional actual completed test case.

I'm very bullish on LLMs building software, but this doesn't mean the death of software products anymore than 3D printers meant the death of factories.

boys are trying to single shot a browser when a moderate complex task can derail a repo. there’s no good amount of info which might be deliberate but from what i can pick, their value add was “distributed computing and organisational design” but that too they simplified. i agree that simplicity is always the first option but flat filesystem structure without standards will not work. period.

Of course it creates bottlenecks, since code quality takes time and people don’t get it right on the first try when the changes are complex. I could also be faster if I pushed directly to prod!

Don’t get me wrong. I use these tools, and I can see the productivity gains. But I also believe the only way to achieve the results they show is to sacrifice quality, because no software engineer can review the changes at the same speed the agent generates code. They may solve that problem, or maybe the industry will change so only output and LOC matter, but until then I will keep cursing the agent until I get the result I want.

Things like integration creating bottlenecks or a lack of consistent top down direction leading to small risk adverse changes instead of bold redesigns. All things I’ve seen before.

Sometimes workers will task other workers and act as a planner if the task is more complex.

It’s a good setup but it’s nothing like Claude Code.

> Our mission is to automate coding

The tokens were “expensive” from the minds of humans …

https://taonexus.com/publicfiles/jan2026/172toy-browser.py.t... (turn the sound down, it's a bit loud if you interact with the built-in Tetris clone.)

You can run it after installing the packages, "pip install requests pillow urllib3 numpy simpleaudio"

I livestreamed the latest version here 2 weeks ago, it's a ten minute video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xdIMmrLMLo&t=45s

I'm posting from that web browser. As an easter egg, mine has a cool Tetris clone (called Pentrix) based on pieces with 5 segments, the button for this is at the upper-right.

If you have any feature suggestions for what you want in a browser, please make them here:

https://pollunit.com/polls/ahysed74t8gaktvqno100g