Post

I'd argue it is impressive that some of the generated front-ends are better than half-bad, considering these factors. Also, models have visual capabilities for while now. What models definitely lack is the "living process", how and why things get created, and the evolutionary pain that led there.

Exactly pointing out the issues. In my experience it’s great at writing functionality until it gets complex (context loss issue). It’s quite bad at design/visual stuff, despite models understanding “visual stuff” but that’s more Photoshop like visuals, not websites.

I do not think complexity is the issue here, at leat not how we understand it. Models clearly understand the mechanics, also what gets perceived as "good" (or palatable) and they excel at tackling what we think as complexity. Models have no problem holding a whole website in their context.

If you pay a lot yes, otherwise not. I had it for a couple of big app features/services that they lost context and broke their own previous code in the same session. But we’re not talking about normal websites here but complex services.

Those failures, if they are not due to older/subpar models, may be a failure to communicate properly with these models -> "context engineering". If anything LLMs excel at grasping complexity our brains cannot, at least not consciously/"on demand". See e.g. Mythos/security fixes.

0 reposts0 likes

You cannot compare ongoing work on services with audits (mythos). My examples were with latest models from one month ago, using markdown reference files for context, still… The one thing is about context loss because of long term service evolution, the other one a super complex one off task force.