Looks cool, but the readme is AI-generated. Absent throwing my own Fable/Astra at this and hoping it finds any bugs, how does one decide whether to trust AI-assisted software these days?
How does one decide whether to trust any software? Not just the small things we do have the source code for, but big things that we don't have the source code for? I don't think this is a new problem.
Nothing is foolproof, but signals can go a long way. If an app's UI is poorly considered or comes across as careless for example there's a good chance that its other aspects are like that too.
After a significant number of iterations of testing, and improving it. When we wrote code by hand, something like changing an api endpoint or a simple front end change would still involve dozens of "write code" then "retest manually". This would not only get the work item done, but you would often encounter edge cases or other issues you hadn't thought of when writing/reading the ticket.
When AI can one shot the implementation and testing, it likely only gets 1 round of human testing if you are lucky. Then scale this to an entire AI generated project, the ratio of features to manually run tests is astronomical. In the old days this ratio was inverted, and the tool has been battle tested before reaching any users.
I don't think human vs agent inherently means that the app is built any more rigorously. Sure, it might be. But it's not guaranteed that a human app is more rigorously built than one guided by human, or vice versa. It depends, on the developer and how much they care, as it always has even before agents. I remember some shocking software from back in the day, Windows Vista being the top of that steaming pile. There's nothing new here.
If you're not able to write your own fucking README (the title page if we're making book analogies) why would I bother with your project. Stop being lazy.
For me, this is not gonna be a daily driver but more of the one off screenshot browser so that my screenshots look super minimal with no popular browser shell in them :)
Hmm why is it 186.1MB? Where Search is only 2MB? And blocks ads. Seems like much needed browser that is NOT Chromium based. Seems like DDG team can learn something from the way how Search is built.
- Resources are 130MiB, including a phishing filter set json file of 18 MiB, phishing hash prefixes of 6 MiB, lots of images and other resources (js, etc.)
- The main binary is 87MiB
- Another binary of 32MiB for “private information removal”
- VPN proxy extension is 17MiB, the VPN binary is 21MiB + 10MiB in another file
- The network protection app extension is 25MiB + another 25 in another file
The rest is frameworks (mostly Lottie and GRDB, in terms of space).
for me the one good thing about using Safari/Webkit is getting all the macOS integration with things like Passwords/touchID auth, Apple Pay, passkeys etc.
sadly none of that is in this so far.
also boasting about chrome extension support is nice, but at this time people probably want firefox extensions so that UBO can fully run.
17 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 49.0 ms ] threadWhen AI can one shot the implementation and testing, it likely only gets 1 round of human testing if you are lucky. Then scale this to an entire AI generated project, the ratio of features to manually run tests is astronomical. In the old days this ratio was inverted, and the tool has been battle tested before reaching any users.
- Resources are 130MiB, including a phishing filter set json file of 18 MiB, phishing hash prefixes of 6 MiB, lots of images and other resources (js, etc.)
- The main binary is 87MiB
- Another binary of 32MiB for “private information removal”
- VPN proxy extension is 17MiB, the VPN binary is 21MiB + 10MiB in another file
- The network protection app extension is 25MiB + another 25 in another file
The rest is frameworks (mostly Lottie and GRDB, in terms of space).
sadly none of that is in this so far.
also boasting about chrome extension support is nice, but at this time people probably want firefox extensions so that UBO can fully run.