Comment by dag11
8 hours ago
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.
I just know if the first spoonful tastes like dung then I'm not going to keep eating the soup.
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...
> But the creator doesn't care because
I’ve always found it annoying when people make declarations like this. You can speak criticize a work without attacking someone’s personality.
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.
[dead]