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.
Over the last few decades I’ve read many technical docs that were obviously mechanically translated from some other language. This is much better.
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.
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 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).
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...
I’ve always found it annoying when people make declarations like this. You can speak criticize a work without attacking someone’s personality.
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.
What I really would like is a universal furniture planning program which includes all IKEA furniture (and possibly third party furniture as well) and full configurability of the room. IKEA has design apps, but they are so frustrating to use because only some products are available in each app and they are wildly inconsistent in how much each allows you to configure the room shape.
1. Every piece of wood had small round sticker on it with a number eg: ③ that could be reference in the manual. No having to try to figure out if the piece in the manual has the exact hole pattern or whatever
2. All of the screws, dowels, etc were in separate bags, each with a letter on it Ⓚ
3. It had extra supports here an there - maybe some ikea furniture has this too but I haven't seen it.
Ikea was best in that the instructions are designed to be universal, no words.
Bought some random name stuff from Amazon. Everything helpfully labeled with a numbered sticker… that required a lot of time with a hair dryer to remove…
Now I prompt LLMs all day for my job and it is much different. Yes, AI allows me to write way more than in the pre-AI age, but it is certainly fun in a different way, not the kind of IKEA-assembly fun.
The actual paper instructions are super clear and don’t have all the junk distracting extras.
The art of communication is simplicity.