I tried uploading our design system. Claude Design’s environment was so limited it had to reimplement it from scratch in HTML, JS and CSS. Doing that burned through more than half the token limit. Along the way it completely changed it and made up things that don’t fit in at all, neither visually or as code. The output of making a mockup is one huge HTML file with minified CSS that just can’t be used meaningfully for anything.

I guess I had expected something like Claude Code with visual tools added on top, but that’s not what this is.

to be honest even if it had worked, i don't see claude design ever working as your source of truth

I imagine lots of games do already, but offline. Most games don’t have gameplay that requires real-time terrain generation. The idea of generating terrain procedurally is not new, but this technique that gets a great-looking erosion effect in real time is.

So what you’re saying is that parrots are stochastic parrots.

You've just described most of the information economy.

This thread is going to end with Monty Python jokes.

Your argument that it’s a shallow argument is itself a shallow argument. ”I hate x” is not a technical argument anyway, it’s an emotional assessment.

As much as we like to think of ourselves as rational beings, emotions are still a very large part of our decision making process. I didn't build Qite because I hate React, I built it because I knew exactly how I wanted things to work. But I do hate React and it's part of why I knew exactly how I wanted things to work.

> As much as we like to think of ourselves as rational beings, emotions are still a very large part of our decision making process

And yet, plenty of people all around the world are able to get traction for their products without mentioning the hate of another.

> I didn't build Qite because I hate React,

I get that React being the most popular front-end framework means it's going to get it's fair share of criticism, but it's become pathetic the degree to which people have made hating it their personality. Even going so far as to market their own frameworks in terms of their personal feelings towards it.

Nobody is saying humans aren't emotional, you're trying to deflect from being unable to disconnect your emotions from another library.

It's React Derangement Syndrome.

I dislike React because it’s large, slow, and completely unnecessary. If I can write a spa that both 10x faster and 10x smaller without it then why would I bother with React? That isn’t any kind of syndrome. It’s me not wasting my time on vanity bullshit.

I really think autism has a lot to do with the necessity of large frameworks. They provide a vanity layer to hide behind for people who cannot introspect and cannot measure.

> I dislike React because it’s large, slow, and completely unnecessary.

You're personal opinion is irrelevant to the point I'm making. And that's exactly my point. For whatever reason people can't stop talking about their dislike for it. Going so far as to literally have it be your framework's tagline.

You can't even read a comment about Svelte without their need to bring React up.

> I really think autism has a lot to do with the necessity of large framework

No it's because the needs of the web have dramatically changed in the last 20 years. That's why people reach for things to help them build front-end apps. It's almost comical how different it is.

Interesting to note how similar this seems to what happened with Benj Edwards at Ars Technica. AI was used to extract or summarize information, and quotes found in the summary were then used as source material for the final writing and never double checked against the actual source.

I’ve run into a similar problem myself - working with a big transcript, I asked an AI to pull out passages that related to a certain topic, and only because of oddities in the timestamps extracted did I realize that most of the quotes did not exist in the source at all.

This seems like a solved problem. Any RAG interface I design I have links to the original source and passage. Even NotebookLM does this.

For the curious, the term of art is Grounding.

e.g.: https://docs.cloud.google.com/vertex-ai/generative-ai/docs/g...

It might be a solved problem in the sense that it has a possible solution, but not in the sense that it doesn’t happen with the tools most people would expect to be able to handle the task.

It was already a solved problem with cmd/ctrl + f.

Microwaves are for heating, ovens are for cooking. Obviously it’s possible to live on only microwaved food but it sounds pretty miserable.

Part 1 discussion, December 2024: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42343953

Meanwhile, iPhone is still using this design https://xkcd.com/1884/

Describing what computers do as ”thinking” is not new. It’s a useful and obvious metaphor. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/68991

It is a deceitful metaphor.

That’s an interesting approach, but what do you learn from it that is applicable to the next task? Do you find that this eventually boils down to heuristics that generalize to any task? It sounds like it would only work because you already put a lot of effort into understanding the constraints of the specific problem in detail.