Look at that stupid dog. It's reading a book, but it's really trashy YA. It's not even Shakespeare. Dogs are stupid.
I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
71–80 of 483 posts
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#72Space Jam website design as an LLM benchmark. This article is a bit negative. Claude gets close , it just can't get the order right which is something OP can manually fix. I prefer GitHub Copilot because it's cheaper and integrates with GitHub directly. I'll have times where it'll get it right, and times when I have to try 3 or 4 times.
> 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.
Perfection is the enemy of good.
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#73I like how the author calls a script on the internet "him".
better than using a plural for a single entity
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#74maybe 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.
We should check the Wayback Machine, but in my memory this was built with an image map. Maybe like, 10 years ago or something. I was googling around when writing this post and saw that there are folks still tasked with making sure it's up and running. I wonder if they migrated it to tables at some point in the last decade.
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#75I 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.
As a couple other comments pointed out, it's also not fair to judge Claude based on a one shot like this. I sort of assume these limitations will remain even if we went back and forth but to be fair, I didn't try that more than a few times in this investigation. Maybe on try three it totally nails it.
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#76We don't know how to build it anymore
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#77Look at that stupid dog. It's reading a book, but it's really trashy YA. It's not even Shakespeare. Dogs are stupid.
lol, that is fair criticism
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#78I personally don't understand why asking these things to do things we know they can't do is supposed to be productive. Maybe for getting around restrictions or fuzzing... I don't see it as an effective benchmark unless it can link directly to the ways the models are being improved, but, to look at random results that sometimes are valid and think more iterations of randomness will eventually give way to control is a…
I think this is a reasonable take. I think for me, I like to investigate limitations like this in order to understand where the boundaries are. Claude isn't impossibly bad at analyzing images. It's just pixel perfect corrections that seem to be a limitation. Maybe for some folks it's enough to just read that but for me, I like to feel like I have some good experiential knowledge about the limitations that I can keep in my brain and apply appropriately in the future.
Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#79Re: I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude
#80>Look, I still need this Space Jam website recreated.
Now that's a novel sentence if I've ever read one.