81–90 of 308 posts
When exploring a new idea or tool, my go to prompt is ``` In a single index.html, no dependencies, sparse styling, create an app that ``` Even before AI, it's how I built small tools, and there's something lovely about being able to email my friends the tool, and tell them "If you want to make a change, toss it to your LLM!"
Sure enough, this is full of listicles and of a length no human would write for an idea as simple as "Use HTML instead of Markdown."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've yet to see Anthropic promote any sort of token optimization strategy to its users - they always assume we all have infinite inference. "No bread? Let them eat cake!"
Not sure how you use CC, but the last 6 months has felt like significant optimization efforts to me. Last year Claude would just read and edit files, now it's all kinds of basic tool gymnastics with grep/awk/sed/etc to narrowly slice and avoid token-heavy reads. Resuming sessions that aren't even that large get a scary prompt about using a significant portion of your token budget if you continue without compacting. T…
Both the original Markdown spec [1] as well as CommonMark [2] clearly specify support for inline HTML. With that you can kind of get the best of both words depending on your use case. For the most parts you just write the regular Markdown headers and paragraphs, embed images, insert tables etc without the need for any HTML tags, making it readable in source form. And if you want to embed an SVG file for example, whic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is HTML really that much worse to edit than MD?
Let’s see… *No!* I mean, yes! It depends what we mean I guess, isn’t Markdown supposed to allow [hx]ml tags anyway if user need them? Then it’s more about asking the LLM to generate Markdown with this in consideration, and privilege rendering the output of reports in the preferred browser after relevant rendering.
2. One of the limiting factors of LLM is context. An html table takes up way more tokens than a markdown table. Especially if it's a WYSIWYG editor that has all kinds of css and tags just for fun.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A counter argument would be that all programming languages of the last decades have been plain text based. No other more structured format has ever gained traction even though modern editors could be argued to be able to support that easily. Turns out, it doesn't actually work that way.
Most people edit documents in Microsoft word, though, so it didn’t seem too far fetched that LLM content would be edited similarly, especially as more and more non-programmers use it.
I’ve been prompting my way to all kinds of interactive HTML artifacts the last month or so. It’s way more fun than making decks and static documentation. I even did a workshop with PartyKit cursors, dot voting, reflection comments, and an individual rating at the end. Oh, and I can add super lightweight analytics so I know who actually reads my things or interacts with my prototypes. ^_^
Blog post plz
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have been authoring HTML by hand for decades with ease. Text editors are very good at it, and many have commands to auto-wrap, auto-close etc. Reading and writing is simple.
>We have been authoring HTML by hand for decades with ease No, we've been generating it with templates or authoring templates. Authoring HTML by hand is a very early 2000s thing to do.