Live data from Hacker News

I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude

j0nah.com

461–470 of 483 posts

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

#461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make several good points, and I appreciate that they appear well thought out. > What previously took creative human work now became a mechanical transformation of input data. At which point I find myself wondering if there's actually a problem. If it was previously permitted due to the presence of creative input, why should automating that process change the legal status? What justifies treating human output diff…

> What justifies treating human output differently? Human time is inherently valuable, computer time is not. One angle: The real issue is how this is made possible. Imagine an AI being created by a lone genius or a team of really good programmers and researchers by sitting down and just writing the code. From today's POV, it would be almost unimaginably impressive but that is how most people envisioned AI being creat…

Human time is certainly valuable to a particular human. However, if I choose to spend time doing something that a machine can do people will not generally choose to compensate me more for it just because it was me doing it instead of a machine.

I think it's worth remembering that IP law is generally viewed (at least legally) as existing for the net benefit of society as opposed to for ethical reasons. Certainly many authors feel like they have (or ought to have) some moral right to control their work but I don't believe that was ever the foundation of IP law.

Nor do I think it should be! If we are to restrict people's actions (ex copying) then it should be for a clear and articulable net societal benefit. The value proposition of IP law is that it prevents degenerate behavior that would otherwise stifle innovation. My question is thus, how do these AI developments fit into that?

So I completely agree that (for example) laundering a full work more or less verbatim through an AI should not be permissible. But when it comes to the higher order transformations and remixes that resemble genuine human work I'm no longer certain. I definitely don't think that "human exceptionalism" makes for a good basis either legally or ethically.

Regarding FOSS licenses, I'm again asking how AI relates back to the original motivations. Why does FOSS exist in the first place? What is it trying to accomplish? A couple ideological motivations that come to mind are preventing someone building on top and then profiting, or ensuring user freedom and ability to tinker.

Yes, the current crop of AI tools seem to pose an ideological issue. However! That's only because the current iteration can't truly innovate and also (as you note) the process still requires lots of painstaking human input. That's a far cry from the hypothetical that I previously posed.

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

#462
I almost did it with the plain claude code on a $20 plan, without any skills, by leveraging my domain expertise with the following prompt:

  Your goal is to create an HTML5 website that is pixel-accurate as the screenshot @Space-Jam.png . You can use the image files in the `img` folder. To achieve pixel-level reproduction, first write auxiliary programs to measure the pixel locations of the objects on this page. Then use your measurements to create the page. Consider using feature detection/matching with per-object (x, y) offsets and a global scale factor shared by all objects as the free parameters. Consider using RANSAC for robust estimation. After obtaining an initial estimation, crop the image of each object and use local sparse optical flow for refinement. Use JPG format for visual inspection of intermediate results. Your webpage should be able to scale with the window size.

Note: the footer text size/locations are off. We can probably fix that by explicitly asking cc to write scripts for text bounding box detection.

More details here: https://gist.github.com/jia-kai/802de63816711d67f0a090fa267a...

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

#463

Well 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…

Ah, those days, where you would slice your designs and export them to tables.

Oh man, Photoshop still has the slice feature and it makes the most horrendous table-based layout possible. It's beautiful.

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

#464

Claude can't properly count the number of characters in a sentence. It's asking a lot to assume it can get pixel perfect.

LLMs can, for example, write a script to calculate all permutations of the levenshtein distances between words in a sentence and deliver it before the average programmer even understands what this means. Trivialy.

You're just holding it wrong if you're asking it to simply count the characters in a sentence.

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

#465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The failure mode here (Claude trying to satisfy rather than saying 'this is impossible with the constraints') shows up everywhere. We use it for security research - it'll keep trying to find exploits even when none exist rather than admit defeat. The key is building external validation (does the POC actually work?) rather than trusting the LLM's confidence.

Ah! I see the problem now! AI can't see shit, it's a statistical model not some form of human. It uses words, so like humans, it can say every shit it wants and it's true until you find out. The number one rule of the internet is don't believe anything you read. This rule was lost in history unfortunately.

Don't get scared when neuroscience uncovers that human thoughts are just statistical models.

tahts wyh yuo cna sitll raed tihs setnence.

statistical models are the only way to solve the problem. nature did it too.

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

#466

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 wo…

> vastly less intelligent than a human I would more phrase it like that they are a completely alien “intelligence” that cant really be compared to human intelligence

I meant that frame very deliberately. Use of the word AI is misleading people that LLMs are intelligent.

They model what looks like intelligence but with very hard limits. The two advantages they have over human brains are perfect recall and data storage. They are also faster.

But the brain is vastly more intelligent:

- It can learn concepts (e.g. language) with an order of magnitude less information

- It responds in parallel to multiple formats of stimuli (e.g. sight/sound)

- LLMs lack the ability to generalise

- The brain interprets and understands what it experienced

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Don't get me wrong: I use AI, it is by far some of the most impressive tech we have built so far, and it has potential to advance society significantly.

But it is definitely, vastly, less intelligent than us.

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

#467
post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Might work if you set media resolution to high: https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/media-resolution I tried it on one of the images, how did it do? https://aistudio.google.com/app/prompts?state=%257B%2522ids%...

I don't trust the AI Studio "share" links so here's the image I used: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd....

And the prompt:

  Turn this into a list of artist - album
I ran that against Gemini 3 Pro Preview with media resolution set to "high"

Here's the result:

  Based on the image provided, here is the list of artists and albums in order from left to right, top to bottom:
  
  **Row 1**
  *   **100 gecs** – 1000 gecs
  *   **Alex G** – House of Sugar
  *   **Angel Olsen** – My Woman
  *   **The Beths** – Future Me Hates Me
  *   **Big Thief** – U.F.O.F.
  *   **black midi** – Schlagenheim
  *   **Candy Claws** – Ceres & Calypso in the Deep Time
  *   **Cloud Nothings** – Attack on Memory
  
  **Row 2**
  *   **Courtney Barnett** – Sometimes I Sit and Think, and Sometimes I Just Sit
  *   **D'Angelo & The Vanguard** – Black Messiah
  *   **Danny Brown** – Atrocity Exhibition
  *   **Deafheaven** – Sunbather
  *   **Deerhunter** – Halcyon Digest
  *   **Destroyer** – Kaputt
  *   **FKA twigs** – Magdalene
  *   **Flying Lotus** – Cosmogramma
  
  **Row 3**
  *   **Frank Ocean** – Blonde
  *   **Hop Along** – Bark Your Head Off, Dog
  *   **The Hotelier** – Home, Like Noplace Is There
  *   **Japanese Breakfast** – Soft Sounds from Another Planet
  *   **Jeff Rosenstock** – Worry.
  *   **Julia Holter** – Have You in My Wilderness
  *   **Julien Baker** – Sprained Ankle
  *   **King Gizzard & The Lizard Wizard** – Nonagon Infinity
  
  **Row 4**
  *   **Mac DeMarco** – Salad Days
  *   **Oneohtrix Point Never** – Replica
  *   **Parquet Courts** – Wide Awake!
  *   **Perfume Genius** – No Shape
  *   **Phoebe Bridgers** – Stranger in the Alps
  *   **Sidney Gish** – No Dogs Allowed
  *   **SOPHIE** – Oil of Every Pearl's Un-Insides
  *   **St. Vincent** – Strange Mercy
  
  **Row 5**
  *   **Sufjan Stevens** – Carrie & Lowell
  *   **Tame Impala** – Lonerism
  *   **Tim Hecker** – Virgins
  *   **Titus Andronicus** – The Monitor
  *   **Vampire Weekend** – Modern Vampires of the City
  *   **The War on Drugs** – Lost in the Dream
  *   **Weyes Blood** – Titanic Rising
  *   **Yves Tumor** – Safe in the Hands of Love

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

#468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough, I'll temper the rhetoric. It still seems you can make the front page posting these words as long as they're externally hosted. Or maybe it's the fact Anil is a bit of a celebrity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46128548

Hey man, there's a world of difference between what's essentially a tweet (HN comment) and an article. If you wanna make charged statements, at the very least substantiate them. (To be clear: I don't necessarily disagree with you, but you gotta admit your language is emotionally laden and lacks substance.)

Thank you for the calibration.

I've been seeing a lot of Anthropic folks talking (rather gleefully) about ending our profession recently, and it's getting on my nerves.

I don't believe their timelines or unassailability. And even if our jobs do come to an end, I believe in work after work. I'm just not a fan of the almost smug assuredness or their apparent crusade against ICs.

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

#470
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is a true and useful component of analyzing risk, but the point is that human behaviour isn't a simple risk calculation. We tend to over-guard against things that subjectively seem dangerous, and under-guard against things that subjectively feel safe.

This isn't about whether AI is statistically safer, it's actually about the user experience of AI: If we can provide the same guidance without lulling a human backup into complacency, we will have an excellent augmented capability.

Post reply on HN