Live data from Hacker News

I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude

j0nah.com

61–70 of 483 posts

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

#62
I got quite close with Gemini 3 pro in AI studio. I uploaded a screenshot (no assets) and the results were similar to OP. It failed to follow my fix initially but I told it to follow my directions (lol) and it came quite close (though portrait mode distorted it, landscape was close to perfect.

“Reference the original uploaded image. Between each image in the clock face, create lines to each other image. Measure each line. Now follow that same process on the app we’ve created, and adjust the locations of each image until all measurements align exactly.”

https://aistudio.google.com/app/prompts?state=%7B%22ids%22:%...

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

#64
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it just can't get the order right which is something OP can manually fix. If the tool needs you to check up on it and fix its work, it's a bad tool.

“Bad” seems extreme. The only way to pass the litmus test you’ve described is for a tool to be 100% perfect, so then the graph looks like 99.99% “bad tool” until it reaches 100% perfection. It’s not that binary imo. It can still be extremely useful and save a ton of time if it does 90% of the work and you fix the last 10%. Hardly a bad tool. It’s only a bad tool if you spent more time fixing the results than building…

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.

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

#65

I wouldn't call it entirely defeated, it got maybe 90% of the way there. Before LLMs you couldn't get 50% of the way there in an automated way. > What he produces I feel like personifying LLMs more than they currently are is a mistake people make (though humans always do this), they're not entities, they don't know anything. If you treat them too human you might eventually fool yourself a little too much.

[deleted]

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

#66
Claude/LLMs in general are still pretty bad at the intricate details of layouts and visual things. There are a lot of problems that are easy to get right for a junior web dev but impossible for an LLM. On the other hand, I was able to write a C program that added gamma color profile support to linux compositors that don't support it (in my case Hyprland) within a few minutes! A - for me - seemingly hard task, which would have taken me at least a day or more if I didn't let Claude write the code. With one prompt Claude generated C code that compiled on first try that:

- Read an .icc file from disk

- parsed the file and extracted the VCGT (video card gamma table)

- wrote the VCGT to the video card for a specified display via amdgpu driver APIs

The only thing I had to fix was the ICC parsing, where it would parse header strings in the wrong byte-order (they are big-endian).

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

#68
post #40

maybe ask it to use 1990s table based layout approaches?

Interesting. I just looked at the page source and it is in fact using a table layout. I always assumed it was an image map, which I assume would be even more obscure for the LLM.

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

#69

> here's no other way to do it besides getting Claude to recreate it from a screenshot And > I'm an engineering manager I can't tell if this is an intentional or unintentional satire of the current state of AI mandates from management.

lololol
Post reply on HN