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

I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude

j0nah.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 483 posts

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

#81

Post by [deleted] »

a4isms wrote: post #64
markbao wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

[deleted]

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

#82

Post by nickdothutton »

I have recently been working on something "fun" in the terminal that mingles plain ASCII, ANSI "graphics", actual bitmaps (Sixel), and Nerdfonts in a TUI framework (Charm etc). After a week of smashing Claude's head against a wall, which is better than smashing my own, I've had to significantly alter my hopes and expectations.

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

#83

Post by mcbuilder »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #31
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #3

Claude is not very good at using screenshots. The model may technically be multi-modal, but its strength is clearly in reading text. I'm not surprised it failed here.

Especially since it decomposes the image into a semantic vector space rather than the actual grid of pixels. Once the image is transformed into patch embeddings all sense of pixels is entirely destroyed. The author demonstrates a profound lack of understanding for how multimodal LLMs function that a simple query of one would elucidate immediately. The right way to handle this is not to build it grids and whatnot, whi…

Yeah, this is exactly what I was thinking. LLMs don't have precise geometrical reasoning from images. Having an intuition of how the models work is actually.a defining skill in "prompt engineering"

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

#84

Post by dmd »

jacobsenscott wrote: post #63

> 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.

i can’t tell if your comment is satire or not

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

#85

Post by satisfice »

fortyseven wrote: post #71

Look at that stupid dog. It's reading a book, but it's really trashy YA. It's not even Shakespeare. Dogs are stupid.

But the dog's owner keeps saying that it ONLY reads Shakespeare. The dog's owner wants millions of dollars for the dog on that basis.

I'm not mad at the dogs, I'm mad at the stupid investors and the lying owners.

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

#86

Post by boie0025 »

lagniappe wrote: post #13
thecr0w wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any names for the competing specs? Maybe i could try re-prompting with that direction.

Models are trained with content scraped from the net, for the most part. The availability of content pertaining to those specs is almost nil, and of no SEO value. Ergo, models for the most part will only have a cursory knowledge of a spec that your browser will never be able to parse because that isn't the spec that won. Nonetheless, here is a link to a list of the specs you asked for: https://www.w3.org/Style/Histor…

Thanks for sharing that. I read through a lot of this. Interesting to read those perspectives in the context of today.

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

#87

Post by lagniappe »

boie0025 wrote: post #86
lagniappe wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Models are trained with content scraped from the net, for the most part. The availability of content pertaining to those specs is almost nil, and of no SEO value. Ergo, models for the most part will only have a cursory knowledge of a spec that your browser will never be able to parse because that isn't the spec that won. Nonetheless, here is a link to a list of the specs you asked for: https://www.w3.org/Style/Histor…

Thanks for sharing that. I read through a lot of this. Interesting to read those perspectives in the context of today.

Much obliged. Have a good weekend. Your new gray hairs are en route :)

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

#88

Post by isoprophlex »

I have a very weird tangential nit to pick: gendering LLMs. I swear I'm not pushing any sort of gender agenda/discussion that can be had anytime anywhere else in the current age, but to me there is something quintessentially a-gendered about the output of a computer program.

Calling Claude (or GPT-5 or Gemini or my bash terminal for that matter) a "he" seems absurd to the point of hilarity.

In my mind, they've always firmly been "it"s.

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

#89

Post by chilmers »

jacobsenscott wrote: post #63

> 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.

You really can’t tell? Perhaps the bar for AGI is lower than I thought.

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

#90

Post by mrweasel »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #56
999900000999 wrote: post #9

Space 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.

That's my thinking. If I need to check up on the work, then I'm equally capable of writing the code myself. It might go faster with an LLM assisting me, and that feels perfectly fine. My issue is when people use the AI tools to generate something far beyond their own capabilities. In those cases, who checks the result?
Post reply on HN