←back to thread

I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude

(j0nah.com)
549 points thecr0w | 2 comments | 07 Dec 25 17:18 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
thuttinger ◴[07 Dec 25 19:44 UTC] No.46184466[source]▶
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).

replies(3): >>46184840 #>>46185379 #>>46185476 #
jacquesm ◴[07 Dec 25 21:33 UTC] No.46185379[source]▶
Claude didn't write that code. Someone else did and Claude took that code without credit to the original author(s), adapted it to your use case and then presented it as its own creation to you and you accepted this. If a human did this we probably would have a word for them.
replies(16): >>46185404 #>>46185408 #>>46185442 #>>46185473 #>>46185478 #>>46185791 #>>46185885 #>>46185911 #>>46186086 #>>46186326 #>>46186420 #>>46186759 #>>46187004 #>>46187058 #>>46187235 #>>46188771 #
bsaul ◴[07 Dec 25 21:43 UTC] No.46185478[source]▶
That's an interesting hypothesis : that LLM are fundamentally unable to produce original code.

Do you have papers to back this up ? That was also my reaction when i saw some really crazy accurate comments on some vibe coded piece of code, but i couldn't prove it, and thinking about it now i think my intuition was wrong (ie : LLMs do produce original complex code).

replies(7): >>46185592 #>>46185822 #>>46186708 #>>46187030 #>>46187456 #>>46188840 #>>46191020 #
fpoling ◴[07 Dec 25 22:19 UTC] No.46185822[source]▶
Pick up a book about programming from seventies or eighties that was unlikely to be scanned and feed into LLM. Take a task from it and ask LLM to write a program from it that even a student can solve within 10 minutes. If the problem was not really published before, LLM fails spectacularly.
replies(4): >>46185881 #>>46185976 #>>46186648 #>>46187999 #
1. handoflixue ◴[08 Dec 25 03:34 UTC] No.46187999[source]▶
It's telling that you can't actually provide a single concrete example - because, of course, anyone skilled with LLMs would be able to trivially solve any such example within 10 minutes.

Perhaps the occasional program that relies heavily on precise visual alignment will fail - but I dare say if we give the LLM the same grace we'd give a visually impaired designer, it can do exactly as well.

replies(1): >>46189065 #
2. tovej ◴[08 Dec 25 06:28 UTC] No.46189065[source]▶
I recently asked an LLM to give me one of the most basic and well-documented algorithms in the world: a blocked matrix multiply. It's essentially a few nested loops and some constants for the block size.

It failed massively, spitting out garbage code, where the comments claimed to use blocking access patterns, but the code did not actually use them at all.

LLMs are, frankly, nearly useless for programming. They may solve a problem every once in a while, but once you look at the code, you notice it's either directly plagiarized or bad quality (or both, I suppose, in the latter case).