In my experience codex has been better at details like this. But who knows working with an llm much like another engineer is all about how you ask and then how you iterate with the llm.
I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
401–410 of 483 posts
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or the original point doesn't actually hold up to basic scrutiny and is indistinguishable from straw itself.
The original point, that LLMs are plagiarising inputs, is a very common and common sense opinion. There are court cases where this is being addressed currently, and if you think about how LLMs operate, a reasonable person typically sees that it looks an awful lot like plagiarism. If you want to claim it is not plagiarism, that requires a good argument, because it is unclear that LLMs can produce novelty, since they'r…
I need you to prove to me that it's not plagiarism when you write code that uses a library after reading documentation, I guess.
> since they're literally trying to recreate the input data as faithfully as possible.
Is that how they are able to produce unique code based on libraries that didn't exist in their training set? Or that they themselves wrote? Is that how you can give them the documentation for an API and it writes code that uses it? Your desire to make LLMs "not special" has made you completely blind to reality. Come back to us.
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
The original point, that LLMs are plagiarising inputs, is a very common and common sense opinion. There are court cases where this is being addressed currently, and if you think about how LLMs operate, a reasonable person typically sees that it looks an awful lot like plagiarism. If you want to claim it is not plagiarism, that requires a good argument, because it is unclear that LLMs can produce novelty, since they'r…
I need you to prove to me that it's not plagiarism when you write code that uses a library after reading documentation, I guess. > since they're literally trying to recreate the input data as faithfully as possible. Is that how they are able to produce unique code based on libraries that didn't exist in their training set? Or that they themselves wrote? Is that how you can give them the documentation for an API and i…
What?
The LLM is trained on a corpus of text, and when it is given a sequence of tokens, it finds a set of token that, when one of them is appended, make the resulting sequence most like the text in that corpus.
If it is given a sequence of tokens that is unlike anything in its corpus, all bets are off and it produces garbage, just like machine learning models in general: if the input is outside the learned distribution, quality goes downhill fast.
The fact that they've added a Monte Carlo feature to the sequence generation, which makes it sometimes select a token that is slightly less like the most exact match in the corpus does not change this.
LLMs are fuzzy lookup tables for existing text, that hallucinate text for out-of-distribution queries.
This is LLM 101.
If the LLM was only trained using documentation, then there would be no problem. If it would generate a design, look at the documentation, understand the semantics of both, and translate the design to code by using the documentation as a guide.
But that's not how it works. It has open source repositories in its corpus that it then recreates by chaining together examples in this stochastic parrot -method I described above.
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, those days, where you would slice your designs and export them to tables.
Why not! We did this in 2024 for our website (1) to have zero CSS. Still works, only Claude can not understand what those tables means. 1. https://www.tirreno.com
Your logo gets cut off in Firefox https://i.ibb.co/kbj5vw7/image.png
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not bad faith argument. It’s an attempt to shake thinking that is profoundly stuck by taking that thinking to an absurd extreme. Until that’s done, quite a few people aren’t able to see past the assumptions they don’t know they making. And by quite a few people I mean everyone, at different times. A strong appreciation for the absurd will keep a person’s thinking much sharper.
>> They key difference between plagarism and building on someone's work is whether you say, "this based on code by linsey at github.com/socialnorms" or "here, let me write that for you." > [i want to] shake thinking that is profoundly stuck [because they] aren’t able to see past the assumptions they don’t know they making what is profoundly stuck, and what are the assumptions?
That your brain training on all the inputs it sees and creating output is fundamentally more legitimate than a computer doing the same thing.
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#406(1) Multi-modal is where a lot of these things go to die. You will hear people talk about the occasional striking success but so often I show Copilot an easily identifiable flower image and it gets it wrong even though Google Lens will get it right
(2) The kind of dialog he's having with Claude is a kind of communication pattern I've found never works with LLMs. Sure there is the kind of conversation that goes
Do X
... that's pretty good except for Y
Great!
Do X
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#407I wonder if Gemini 3 Pro would do better at this particular test? They're very proud of its spatial awareness and vision abilities.
>They're very proud of its spatial awareness and vision abilities.
Suuuuuuuuure they are.
I haven't found a single multimodal model, vision LLM, or any model at all that can segment and extract music charts/infographics.
Can Gemini 3 Pro, in one shot, turn charts like these into lists of "artist - album" without choking on the visuals?
https://reddit.com/r/citypop/comments/10fu1t5/city_pop_album...
https://reddit.com/r/indieheads/comments/173o33z/the_new_ind...
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#408Well this was interesting. As someone who was actually building similar website in the late 90's I threw this into the Opus 4.5. Note the original author is wrong about the original site however: "The Space Jam website is simple: a single HTML page, absolute positioning for every element, and a tiling starfield GIF background.". This is not true, the site is built using tables, not positioning at all, CSS wasn't a th…
Off topic, but you have used imgur as your image hosting site, which cannot be viewed in the UK. If you want all readers to be able to see and understand your points, please could you use a more universally reachable host?
Please reach out to your nearest government official to tell them what do you think about the Imgur not working in your country.
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
Languages with reasonable semantics are rather similar and LLMs are good at detecting that and adapting from other languages.
Sounds like creativity and intelligence to me.
I think the key is that the LLM is having no trouble mapping from one "embedding" of the language to another (the task they are best performers at!), and that appears extremely intelligent to us humans, but certainly is not all there's to intelligence.
But just take a look at how LLMs struggle to handle dynamical, complex systems such as the "vending machine" paper published some time ago. Those kind of tasks, which we humans tend to think of as "less intelligent" than say, converting human language to a C++ implementation, seem to have some kind of higher (or at least, different) complexity than the embedding mapping done by LLMs. Maybe that's what we typically refer to as creativity? And if so, modern LLMs certainly struggle with that!
Quite sci-fi that we have created a "mind" so alien we struggle to even agree on the word to define what it's doing :)
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
You bet, Fun post and writeup, took me a bit down memory lane. I built several sites with nested table-based layouts, 1x1 transparent gif files set to strange widths to get layouts to force certain sizes. Little tricks with repeating gradient backgrounds for fancy 'beveled' effects. Under construction GIFs, page counters, GUESTBOOKS!, Photoshop drop-shadows on everything. All the things, fond-times. One or two I have…
“Photoshop drop-shadows on everything.” I just time traveled for a few second there. Thank you for this comment.
Don’t forget to slice it for a 3x3. (And to recreate it all if you want to change your background color…)