> pointing out differences between the thing I worked on for 24 hours and a room designed painstakingly by hand over weeks.
I went in expecting something handmade, and instead got something that was Claude-made. This doesn’t make me feel good, or feel user-centric. Now we’re throwing Blender into a webpage and serving it client-side rendered to users?
If anything, all of this feels more like bloat rather than something personal. It’s art for Claude’s sake. It’s not telling a story. Even on the actual blog post, the dropdown table of contents displays how long it takes to read each section. It feels so disconnected because it’s possible to throw a feature in, but is it really necessary? Maybe I am getting better at determining AI-made UIs, but all of this feels incredibly artificial.
Lastly, for all of the parallel QA checks and threads, all of the header links besides the “About” page throw a 404 at me. It’s almost ironic.
The website, to me, looks like Claude's project with sprinklings of the author's intent, and not the other way around.
Yes, I agree. It only having one working link is the killer to me as well, because no one checked it besides the pretty front page. There was an article here yesterday about recognizable signs of AI-designed UIs and it was accurate in terms of what most of these sites now look like.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49867038
Ironically, this is the only part I was supposed to do by hand and didn’t give to Claude - making sure the HTTP redirects are setup correctly. Can’t believe I didn’t notice that. Anyway, you can blame dumb dumb me, not Claude.
I think we probably disagree on what level of abstraction means “personal”, but this website feels deeply personal to me. It existed in my head before it existed on a computer. I understand the argument that any form of expression needs to involve labor closer to the raw source material, but then again, I’ve never bought the argument that painters need to mix their own colors for a painting to be theirs. Having worked various layers of the web rendering stack, it also never made a lot of sense to me that you must use a certain layer to be considered “low enough”. Whenever someone claims that it’s JavaScript in Three.js, I immediately suspect, maybe unfairly, that the person has only the faintest idea of how many systems turn their loose instructions and turned them into pixels on their screen.
I don’t doubt that there is technical feat and prowess in being able to do it, and if this satisfies your vision, then you were able to contract an AI agent to do in full, but it is still a layer away from the personal effects of art done by one’s self. I just feel that this still leans more towards some new type of commission.
But largely more is this is a display of how we as people view what AI _seems_ capable of, and how we aren’t being fully aware of what actually has been accomplished. I appreciate the willingness to put this out for the world to see, criticism or not, yet if this is a reflection of how you want your website to be perceived, then having it in a ready, working state tells me how carefully you coordinated the effort. Right now, it just feels reinforces the narrative that work with AI has lost a large sense of quality, even if in this case, it didn’t handle that part. I suppose I expected the article to be something different, but that is on me.