I haven’t studied the project that this is a comment on, but: The article notices that something that compiles, runs, and renders a trivial HTML page might be a good starting point, and I would certainly agree with that when it’s humans writing the code. But is it the only way? Instead of maintaining “builds and runs” as a constant and varying what it does, can it make sense to have “a decent-sized subset of browser functionality” as a constant and varying the “builds and runs” bit? (Admittedly, that bit does not seem to be converging here, but I’m curious in more general terms.)
In theory you could generate a bunch of code that seems mostly correct and then gradually tweak it until it's closer and closer to compiling/working, but that seems ill-suited to how current AI agents work (or even how people work). AI agents are prone to make very local fixes without an understanding of wider context, where those local fixes break a lot of assumptions in other pieces of code.
It can be very hard to determine if an isolated patch that goes from one broken state to a different broken state is on net an improvement. Even if you were to count compile errors and attempt to minimize them, some compile errors can demonstrate fatal flaws in the design while others are minor syntax issues. It's much easier to say that broken tests are very bad and should be avoided completely, as then it's easier to ensure that no patch makes things worse than it was before.
The travel to/from Taiwan was statistically riskier than the climb.
Selfish? Not even close.
That doesn't seem plausible. What's the number of free soloists who have died in climbing accidents vs in commercial aviation accidents?