Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude Design

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 819 posts

Re: Claude Design

#471

Post by mocamoca »

taylorlapeyre wrote: post #198

It really feels like Anthropic's product area is extremely overextended at this point. If they want to extend themselves horizontally in an unlimited fashion, they will need unlimited focus, and agents can't supply that. Things will fall through the cracks. Why should I believe that Anthropic will care about this product in 2, 3 years? Whereas I firmly believe that Figma will care greatly about its product in that ti…

I feel like it's a good way to build the best PoC in any vertical. Either they create a product, or the big players will but Anthropic can provide them with the infra.

Re: Claude Design

#472

Post by atonse »

dugidugout wrote: post #270
atonse wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you like to attempt a more good faith interpretation on what I meant, and address that (you can even imagine doing this in front a user/client and iterating in minutes with them, ultimately getting even better outcomes), instead of inventing the most un-generous interpretation of what I said, that I'm just adding AI slop?

> But for the other 95% of people, being able to just say "ok can you make it look more modern" and have 4 variants in 5 mins, (like me) Figma will lose users like me. Perhaps this phrasing is what invited the interpretation you seem to be annoyed with. There is not much to gain by suggesting everyone is simply bad faith.

No the bad faith part comes from assuming that the output is low quality, and that just because I get _feedback_ in five minutes (read again what I said) it somehow implies that I spent 5 minutes on it and then moved on, never to revisit.

I think you like the other person is assuming that 5 minutes = low quality. Instead of thinking "5 mins means you can make 8-10 iterations in an hour" or "5 minutes making the front end look pretty good means I can spend more time on the backend"

There are many good faith ways to interpret this.

Re: Claude Design

#473

Post by SiempreViernes »

mathisfun123 wrote: post #329
moregrist wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your labor is always actively being transformed into a product sold on a market. there are no "marvelous human experiences", there is only production and consumption. The first time I used Mac OS/X, circa 2004-2005, I was blown away by the design and how they managed to expose the power of the underlying Unix-ish kernel without making it hurt for people who didn't want that experience. My SO couldn't have cared les…

> Sure it was the Apple engineers' and designers' labor transformed into a product, but it was a fucking great product and something that I'm sure those teams were very proud of. The same was true with the the iPod and the iPhone. ... > Work doesn't have to be exploitive. Products don't have to exploit their users. bruh do people have any idea what they're writing as they write it? you're talking about "work doesn't…

The guy in Cupertino aren't the ones behind bars so they can't jump their deaths; for someone who supposedly "clearly delineated", you sure are mixing up those who are being exploited with the people who benefitted.

Ultimately the exploitative pyramid always terminates in a peak, and the guys working up there can for sure be having a hecking great time doing their jobs.

Re: Claude Design

#474

Post by caseyohara »

prmph wrote: post #325
Thanemate wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but why would people use yet another lookalike tool over the one they're currently using? Or is the implication that looks don't matter as long as it works? Because if that's the case, Why do we need CSS?

the beauty is in the consistency. why do we build with right angles, straight lines, regular curves, etc? Why not random angles, crooked lines, etc for style and "excitement"? Why don't we assemble a furniture set from a random assortment of pieces from flea markets? People sense that that is ugly.

A better example might be why we build stairs with a standard riser height and tread run. If you've ever accidentally tripped on an unusual or non-standard stair, you already know this.

Users don't need to think about how to use them; they are ubiquitous and familiar, and therefore intuitive and automatic.

If every set of stairs (or, worse, if every stair in a set) was radically different, every time you approached some stairs you would have to think carefully about how to use them so you don't fall.

Re: Claude Design

#475

Post by nightski »

stronglikedan wrote: post #439
nightski wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed on your take on the parent, although I have to say I feel that AI has had the opposite effect for me. It has only accelerated learning quite significantly. In fact not only is learning more effective/efficient, I have more time for it because I am not spending nearly as much time tracking down stupid issues.

Sounds like you're talking about research AI and not generative AI. You can't learn artistic/creative techniques when you're not practicing those techniques. You can have a vision, but the AI will execute that vision, and you only get the end result without learning the techniques used to execute it.

I guess I was more referring to just using generative AI when learning new subjects and exploring new ideas. It's a really efficient tutor and/or sidekick who can either explain topics in more depth, find better sources, or help me explore new theories. I was thinking beyond just generating code, which is incredibly useful but only mildly interesting.

Re: Claude Design

#476

Post by recitedropper »

cruffle_duffle wrote: post #219
recitedropper wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feeling some heat != in trouble. Just that the pressure cooker is turning to a higher temp. But, I'll gladly admit that I am bias: I'm tired of seeing blatant astroturfing by a company whose main marketing tactic is to play on societal fear, while simultaneously employing safety theatre to look like the "good guys". So take my opinion with a grain of salt :)

It could also be that this is an exciting new, fast changing technology that happens to directly overlap and significantly impact the core audience of the site. I don’t think any form of maliciousness or secret astroturfing is required at all. This stuff has changed a ton of what it means to exist in this whole “tech space”. The entire software development lifecycle got put into a stick blender and is in the process…

I think it's probably both in the end. Anthropic has a lot of fans, and combine that with excited employees and investors, they probably don't need to do much explicit astroturfing to reach top of HN.

But they also desperately need users (and the data those users bring) to build their products, and the people who do have the power to manipulate this site are on their team. And it does get tiring to see a new Claude feature with like 1 comment and 25 points right at the top, multiple times in the last two week. Keeping their needs in mind, it has begun to look like manipulation, even if the above effect could explain it.

I'm glad the technology foments it excitement for you. The idea that we can share intellectual processes broadly and implement them without the previously requisite skills will obviously change the world. That it could change the world for the better, excites me too.

But many of us have our excitement tampered by the messaging, the questionable ethics behind how it has been done, and the fact that a real % of the space is basically driven by eschatological thinking. And it especially annoys me that Anthropic is the company whose messaging simultaneously encourages that eschatological thinking, and preys upon the emotional reactions it creates.

I think it is increasingly clear--if you look at recent public sentiment and feel what is in the air--that they are a villain in this aspect. I don't think we want the people who believe they are building the future to be doing so both out of fear--of China--and gaining power through others' fear of what they are doing.

But villains can ultimately do good in the world, despite their villainy. Let's hope that is how it plays out.

Re: Claude Design

#477

Post by qingcharles »

satvikpendem wrote: post #468
qingcharles wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is 100% a response to "Stitch With Google" which has been doing amazing work in this space for a long time now, and is Google's answer to Lovable. https://stitch.withgoogle.com/ I'm now pasting all my Stitch output into Claude Design to see what happens. edit: First impressions are great. It asked me a ton of really great questions about my design aspirations and direction, which were incredibly relevant and ins…

I too use Stitch, seems like not many have heard of it. Stitch also asks good questions, do you have any examples of both side by side with the same prompt or idea?

Really annoying but I can't figure out how to share a link from Claude Design? It seems to only allow you to share the design with other people on your account? It'll let me export all the HTML and assets, but that's a bit rough to have to download it all and upload it to a host somewhere just to send it to a client for review or something. On Stitch you can just grab a link to the design.

Re: Claude Design

#479

Post by nightski »

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #428
nightski wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed on your take on the parent, although I have to say I feel that AI has had the opposite effect for me. It has only accelerated learning quite significantly. In fact not only is learning more effective/efficient, I have more time for it because I am not spending nearly as much time tracking down stupid issues.

> I have more time for it because I am not spending nearly as much time tracking down stupid issues. It is a truism that the majority of effort and time a software dev spends is allocated toward boilerplate, plumbing, and other tedious and intellectually uninteresting drudgery. LLMs can alleviate much of that, and if used wisely , function as a tool for aiding the understanding of principles, which is ultimately what…

Just wanted to say you put it really well, that's exactly how I feel.

Re: Claude Design

#480

Post by [deleted] »

bauerd wrote: post #309
pilgrim0 wrote: post #285

On Notes on the Synthesis of Form, Alexander defines design as the rationalization of the forces that define a problem. You’ll won’t find a better definition. But people tend to think design is the synthesis and its results. This misunderstanding of the role of design and the designer is responsible for all the unfit designs we encounter on a daily basis. Anyone equipped with a synthesis tool and feeling empowered to…

This is a really verbose way to say that using generative AI has a detrimental effect on the user because one deprives themselves of the learning experience.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN