301–310 of 483 posts
Everything feels wrong with that approach too me, starting with calling a perfectly time-appropriate website anachronistic . Anachronistic would be something like creating an apparent flash website for a fictional 90s internet related movie.
Couldn’t you just feed Claude all the raw, inspect element HTML from the website and have it “decrypt” that? The entire website is fairly small so this seems feasible. Usually there’s a big difference between a website’s final code and its source code because of post processing but that seems like a totally solvable Claude problem. Sure LLMs aren’t great with images, but it’s not like the person who originally wrote…
https://pastebin.com/raw/F2jxZTeJ The HTML I'm referring to, copied from the website. Only about 7,000 characters or just 2,000 Claude tokens. This is feasible.
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/utilities/c...>
That being said, sloppy copy can make doing actual work a lot faster if you treat it with the right about of skepticism and hand-holding.
It's first attempt at the Space Jam site was close enough that it probably could have been manually fixed by an experienced developer in less time than in takes to write the next prompt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://pastebin.com/raw/F2jxZTeJ The HTML I'm referring to, copied from the website. Only about 7,000 characters or just 2,000 Claude tokens. This is feasible.
There's actually a language model developed by The Open Group that will transform that back into the original source code. https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/utilities/c... >
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.
Certainly if a human wrote code that solved this problem, and a second human copied and tweaked it slightly for their use case, we would have a word for them. Would we use the same word if two different humans wrote code that solved two different problems, but one part of each problem was somewhat analogous to a different aspect of a third human's problem, and the third human took inspiration from those parts of both…
This has been my experience with almost everything I've tried to create with generative AI, from apps and websites, to photos and videos, to text and even simple sentences. At first glance, it looks impressive, but as soon as you look closer, you start to notice that everything is actually just sloppy copy. That being said, sloppy copy can make doing actual work a lot faster if you treat it with the right about of sk…
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…