We are actually spoiled at this point.
[flagged]
Could you please stop posting this sort of indignant-sensational comment? It's not what this site is for, as you know (or should know).
I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
111–120 of 483 posts
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#112Ok, so here is an interesting case where Claude was almost good enough, but not quite. But I’ve been amusing myself by taking abandoned Mac OS programs from 20 years ago that I find on GitHub and bringing them up to date to work on Apple silicon. For example, jpegview, which was a very fast and simple slideshow viewer. It took about three iterations with Claude code before I had it working. Then it was time to fix so…
Side note: As a person who started using a mac since march, I found phoenix slides really good.
It is! I was really just curious if I could update this old codebase without getting my hands dirty.
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#113Claude argued with me about the quadratic equation the other day. It vehemently felt a -c was required whereas a c was the correct answer. I pointed this out showing step by step and it finally agreed. I tried Grok to see if it could get it right. Nope, the exact same response as Claude, but Grok never backed down; even after the step by step explanation of the maths.
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#114Claude argued with me about the quadratic equation the other day. It vehemently felt a -c was required whereas a c was the correct answer. I pointed this out showing step by step and it finally agreed. I tried Grok to see if it could get it right. Nope, the exact same response as Claude, but Grok never backed down; even after the step by step explanation of the maths.
Can you link to the conversation log?
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#115Claude is not very good at using screenshots. The model may technically be multi-modal, but its strength is clearly in reading text. I'm not surprised it failed here.
Even with text, parsing content in 2D seems to be a challenge for every LLM I have interacted with. Try getting a chatbot to make an ascii-art circle with a specific radius and you'll see what I mean.
I don't really consider ASCII art to be text. It requires a completely different type of reasoning. A blind person can be understand text if it's read out loud. A blind person really can't understand ASCII art if it's read out loud.
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#116Claude/LLMs in general are still pretty bad at the intricate details of layouts and visual things. There are a lot of problems that are easy to get right for a junior web dev but impossible for an LLM. On the other hand, I was able to write a C program that added gamma color profile support to linux compositors that don't support it (in my case Hyprland) within a few minutes! A - for me - seemingly hard task, which w…
> Claude/LLMs in general are still pretty bad at the intricate details of layouts and visual things Because the rendered output (pixels, not HTML/CSS) is not fed as data in the training. You will find tons of UI snippets and questions, but they rarely included screenshots. And if they do, the are not scraped.
Interesting thought. I wonder if Anthropic et al could include some sort of render-html-to-screenshot as part of the training routine, such that the rendered output would get included as training data.
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#117Claude argued with me about the quadratic equation the other day. It vehemently felt a -c was required whereas a c was the correct answer. I pointed this out showing step by step and it finally agreed. I tried Grok to see if it could get it right. Nope, the exact same response as Claude, but Grok never backed down; even after the step by step explanation of the maths.
In the generalised solution there is a '-c' term with coefficient '4a'...?
I'm not well at the moment, perhaps your ML model has flu?!!
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Bad” seems extreme. The only way to pass the litmus test you’ve described is for a tool to be 100% perfect, so then the graph looks like 99.99% “bad tool” until it reaches 100% perfection. It’s not that binary imo. It can still be extremely useful and save a ton of time if it does 90% of the work and you fix the last 10%. Hardly a bad tool. It’s only a bad tool if you spent more time fixing the results than building…
If you show me a tool that does a thing perfectly 99% of the time, I will stop checking it eventually. Now let me ask you: How do you feel about the people who manage the security for your bank using that tool? And eventually overlooking a security exploit? I agree that there are domains for which 90% good is very, very useful. But 99% isn't always better. In some limited domains, it's actually worse.
Counterpoint.
Humans don't get it right 100% or the time.
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#119I look forward to an alternative reality where AI vendors race to have the model with the best Space Jam Bench scores.
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Could you please stop posting this sort of indignant-sensational comment? It's not what this site is for, as you know (or should know). https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Dang, can you explain how this is indignant or sensational?
Anthropic's leadership and researchers continue to this day to post messages saying engineering will be fully automated. I can go find recent messages on X if you'd like.
This forum is comprised mostly of engineers, who will be the most impacted if their vision of the world pans out.
YC depends on innovation capital to make money. If the means of production are centralized, how does YC make any money at all from engineers? Such a world will be vertically and horizontally integrated, not democratically spread for others to take advantage of.
Now I don't think that's what's going to happen, but that's what the messaging has been and continues to be from Anthropic's leadership, researchers, and ICs.
Why should we support companies like this?
We shouldn't we advocate for open models where any market participants can fully utilize and explore the competitive gradients?
I don't think I'm saying anything controversial here.
Furthermore, if this pans out like it seems it will - a set of three or four AI hyperscalers - we'll also be in the same situation we have today with the big tech hyperscalers.
Due to a lax regulatory environment, these companies put a ceiling on startup exits by funding internal competition, buying competitors, etc. I don't see how the situation will improve in an AI world.
If you're a capitalist, you want competition to be fierce and fair. You don't want concentration of power.
I can see how an Anthropic IC might not like this post, but this should be fairly reasonable for everyone else who would like to see more distribution of power.