Post

fry69
@fry69.dev

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.

Anselm Hannemann
@helloanselm.eurosky.social

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.

fry69
@fry69.dev

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.

fry69
@fry69.dev

What I want to point out, what models lack, is what we call intention, motivation, experience through countless failures. They have to derive what we want, what our goal (their mission) is from a few tokens we hand them in the prompt. Therefore the results are fairly impressive IMHO.

0 reposts2 likes

fry69
@fry69.dev

Another way to look at this is that all the garbage those models get trained on gets filtered through an unrelenting training process, which rewards only the "better" outcomes. That a few silly tokens in the prompt interpolated/inferred with the outcome of this training process yield these results.