Live data from Hacker News

I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude

j0nah.com

141–150 of 483 posts

Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude

#141
Building something similar - using Claude API to generate mini games from text descriptions (https://codorex.com, still pretty rough).

Can confirm: Claude is weirdly good at generating functional game logic from vague prompts, but spatial precision is a constant battle. Anything involving exact pixel positions needs validation/correction layers on top.

The suggestion upthread about having it write its own measurement tools seems promising - haven't tried that approach yet.

Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude

#142
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a human did this we probably would have a word for them. I don’t think it’s fair to call someone who used Stack Overflow to find a similar answer with samples of code to copy to their project an asshole.

Who brought Stack Overflow up? Stack Overflow does not magically generate code, someone has to actually provide it first.

I generally agree with your underlying point concerning attribution and intellectual property ownership but your follow-up comment reframes your initial statement: LLMs generate recombinations of code from code created by humans, without giving credit.

Stack Overflow offers access to other peoples’ work, and developers combined those snippets and patterns into their own projects. I suspect attribution is low.

Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude

#143
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claude didn't write that code. Someone else did and Claude took that code without credit to the original author(s), adapted it to your use case and then presented it as its own creation to you and you accepted this. If a human did this we probably would have a word for them.

That's an interesting hypothesis : that LLM are fundamentally unable to produce original code. Do you have papers to back this up ? That was also my reaction when i saw some really crazy accurate comments on some vibe coded piece of code, but i couldn't prove it, and thinking about it now i think my intuition was wrong (ie : LLMs do produce original complex code).

We can solve that question in an intuitive way: if human input is not what is driving the output then it would be sufficient to present it with a fraction of the current inputs, say everything up to 1970 and have it generate all of the input data from 1970 onwards as output.

If that does not work then the moment you introduce AI you cap their capabilities unless humans continue to create original works to feed the AI. The conclusion - to me, at least - is that these pieces of software regurgitate their inputs, they are effectively whitewashing plagiarism, or, alternatively, their ability to generate new content is capped by some arbitrary limit relative to the inputs.

Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude

#144

this is just AI brainrot disease Help, I can't recreate a website with AI! There's no other way, no way I could fix up some HTML code! Believe me, I'm an engineering manager with a computer science degree! Absolutely disgusting.

I’m pretty confident the author was being sarcastic

Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude

#145
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who brought Stack Overflow up? Stack Overflow does not magically generate code, someone has to actually provide it first.

I generally agree with your underlying point concerning attribution and intellectual property ownership but your follow-up comment reframes your initial statement: LLMs generate recombinations of code from code created by humans, without giving credit. Stack Overflow offers access to other peoples’ work, and developers combined those snippets and patterns into their own projects. I suspect attribution is low.

Stack Overflow deals with that issue by having a license agreement.

Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claude didn't write that code. Someone else did and Claude took that code without credit to the original author(s), adapted it to your use case and then presented it as its own creation to you and you accepted this. If a human did this we probably would have a word for them.

Are you saying that every piece of code you have ever written contains a full source list of every piece of code you previously read to learn specific languages, patterns, etc? Or are you saying that every piece of code you ever wrote was 100% original and not adapted from any previous codebase you ever worked in or any book / reference you ever read?

What's with the bad takes in this thread. That's two strawmen in one comment, it's getting a bit crowded.

Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude

#149
I just feel this is a great example of someone falling into the common trap of treating an LLM like a human.

They are vastly less intelligent than a human and logical leaps that make sense to you make no sense to Claude. It has no concept of aesthetics or of course any vision.

All that said; it got pretty close even with those impediments! (It got worse because the writer tried to force it to act more like a human would)

I think a better approach would be to write a tool to compare screenshots, identity misplaced items and output that as a text finding/failure state. claude will work much better because your dodging the bits that are too interpretive (that humans rock at and LLMs don't)

Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude

#150
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting hypothesis : that LLM are fundamentally unable to produce original code. Do you have papers to back this up ? That was also my reaction when i saw some really crazy accurate comments on some vibe coded piece of code, but i couldn't prove it, and thinking about it now i think my intuition was wrong (ie : LLMs do produce original complex code).

We can solve that question in an intuitive way: if human input is not what is driving the output then it would be sufficient to present it with a fraction of the current inputs, say everything up to 1970 and have it generate all of the input data from 1970 onwards as output. If that does not work then the moment you introduce AI you cap their capabilities unless humans continue to create original works to feed the AI…

Excellent observation.
Post reply on HN