It's really interesting despite others pointing out that it's a little wrong, that can be fixed.
But I also almost left immediately because this claudism at the top really hurt to read:
> Every dowel, cam lock and nail where the page puts it.
I always feel so manipulated when I read it regurgitating the prompt you gave it in such an advertisey way, like it's trying to assure you it met _every_ word of the prompt, regardless of how it actually did.
I honestly don’t know why people get worked up over this. I assume that either the person doing it isn’t a native speaker, or they are a techie that just doesn’t have good English language writing skills. And having those skills is rare for technical people. It’s much easier to deal with Claude than what those people would have written without assistance.
Over the last few decades I’ve read many technical docs that were obviously mechanically translated from some other language. This is much better.
Technology doing code is really cool because you give it an input, a functional purpose, and your intended function output - and it can do a pretty darn good job at producing the code that fulfills the requirements.
But when you want me to read something AI written, without the human refining the UI I see, it almost seems like I'm a test case and all the author cares about is my output in terms of "I like it" or "I don't like it". There's no information about _why_ the author wanted me to see this. Can you tell me your inspiration for making this? Some sort of personal connection I should have with the thing I'm seeing?
Vibe coded apps can still be useful in this state as tools, but don't expect me to use my creative brainpower to provide feedback on your product in a constructive manner if you can't be asked to ensure the text is your intention for the code, not how the AI interpreted it.
I don't really get worked up over it, but I do have a preference for original writing these days. If it's someone's pet project or something creative, I prefer the authenticity of the creative's actual writing. AI writing is just so boring and sterile out of the box. You lose nuance and personality.
It is a bit different with translation, in that case AI translation might get closer to the original intent than manual translation by the author. But otherwise I want the words from their brain meats, not layers removed and cleansed by system prompts and training.
> Over the last few decades I’ve read many technical docs that were obviously mechanically translated from some other language. This is much better.
I don’t think it’s better. Any frontier LLM is capable of competent translation without significantly re-wording the text.
I use Whisper to transcribe foreign language videos and then run them through a couple of models to translate into English. It works really well, and much better than mechanical translation because they can figure out likely mistakes based on how whisper might have misheard (or surrounding context from the script).
Thanks for the feedback! Fair point about the claudism. The copy could definitely use a more human touch.
I just don't have the capacity to go through every line myself lol
The worst part for me is, with a little effort, you can make a final product that doesn't use claude-isms and is 100% correct.
But the creator doesn't care because their goal isn't to make a tool people want to use. They make a minimum viable product, that looks super impressive but lacks that final polish and move on.
It infuriates me enough, that when I get the time I'm going to recreate the 'lighthouses of the world' example I saw the other day. Only I'm going to do it right...
A person's intent leads to the quality of a final product.
They should care if it actually has errors.
They should care if it has claude-isms.
But it certaintly seems like they don't care, at this point in time, about those things.
I'll take your feedback on board. But I'm not calling them stupid, or a bad person. I'm saying their goals are not aligned with my idea of a finished product.
A person's intent can be the problem though, we can criticise that. We're not factory bots here (yet), the community aspect is human in nature not just output focused.
I've noticed a usage shift in the last few years. In 2020, "doomscrolling" originally meant to be stuck scrolling at all the doom-y posts we were bombarded with as the world fell apart around us. As things "stabilized" in the last few years, I've noticed that everyone and myself still tends to use "doomscrolling" even just for when we're stuck, locked in place, scrolling low quality content.
I figure in ten years when someone asks what "doomscrolling" means, we'll probably just shrug and say it means scrolling away to our doom.
I use the phrase "brain rot" for the low quality stuff that I scroll through. I do really hope that we retain the original meaning of "doom scrolling", as I think it's still as relevant today as the COVID days.
> runs as a 1 kHz leaky-integrate-and-fire (LIF) simulation
That hyphenated thing is always such a give. Clearly a thing discussed in the Claude conversation, made its way into the plan, then the readme. It always creates hyphenated phrases out of things it feels are core requirements.
I'm actually over caring about Claude's obsession with the concepts of "real", "honest", and "rather than". What annoys me the most now is how every single sentence, bullet, etc that even makes its way into the products it builds are advertisements for itself. Product settings pages now read like ads, or like something written by a student begging for extra credit from the teacher. You can't unsee it!
To be fair, as a term it has always been written as "Integrate-and-Fire" neuron model. In this case correct would be "Leaky Integrate-and-Fire" but that is nitpicking.
Good instinct. Fair challenge. This corrects my framing. It makes your point sharp. This is a significant finding. Positively confirmed. That settles it, and it flips the picture. Honest verdict - this is not small. Let me wire it in.
"Bet ya a signed dollar it's true." - Musk's follow-up
It went so, so far beyond a schoolyard taunt. All of my friends and I remember the debacle clearly, and it's the moment we all went from childhood idolizers of Musk to feeling pretty sick about the dude.
> you could go to a rave and be you without fear someone would take pictures or people outside the rave would know who you are
These still exist! Look for events promoted as such, or look for smaller local events for the genres you're interested in - the latter might not ban phones, sure, but the vibe is still what you're seeking. Nobody's recording you.
I think part of it also is that, games with the same scope of flash games are still being made, but they're being made for phones which is where the customers. Flash games were the perfect mobile game before mobile games existed.
But the magic was that flash games were created on the same machines they were made on, so curious players (often kids!) had a natural funnel in to dabbling with the creation side, so whole communities of creatives formed naturally.
I don't know how we can solve this disconnect between creation and consumption :(
Sure there's many apps that let you build content from phones (swift playgrounds, other game-making apps, and now a whole gold rush of agentic prompting app-building apps...) but a phone is inherently non-immersive so I don't know how a creator can ever get into a flow state of building content on a phone itself.
But also we possibly just miss being teens on computers.
The soul of this game requires that your cursor can go "behind" things (like trees, or partially submerged in water), can have subtle nudges to keep you on paths and add friction when in water, and also to be able to take full control of your cursor for the lazy river etc!
But I also almost left immediately because this claudism at the top really hurt to read:
> Every dowel, cam lock and nail where the page puts it.
I always feel so manipulated when I read it regurgitating the prompt you gave it in such an advertisey way, like it's trying to assure you it met _every_ word of the prompt, regardless of how it actually did.