5 ms·

Its kind of sad that the first thing in the repo is a mention that no human was involved in the programming.

cyanydeez 4mo ago
which means it probably gets all the halucinated assets correctly and any real world documents wrong. Still, looks pretty; if it actually has proper testing, could close the gap. Code not being the hard part is a major impediment to good software coming out of these things.
isubkhankulov 4mo ago
Would this project exist otherwise? i doubt it
llukas 4mo ago
Would author be able to do it otherwise? Is particular tool choice making result worse? Bit identical/pixel-faithful reproductions are easy to verify…
- applfanboysbgon 4mo ago
  > Is particular tool choice making result worse? Well, yes, because it doesn't work. > Bit identical/pixel-faithful reproductions are easy to verify… And yet the prompter put so little effort in they couldn't even verify the software they prompted for does what it's supposed to.
  - NewsaHackO 4mo ago
    Why do you say it doesn't work? It seems to work fine for the feature parity they claim.
    - doubletwoyou 4mo ago
      For “pixel-faithful” documents it doesn’t seem to be replicating documents all too well based on the many other testimonies in these comments
      - NewsaHackO 4mo ago
        >doesn’t seem to be replicating documents all too well based on the many other testimonies in these comments Ironic, that you are agreeing with a post saying they put in little effort for the implementation when you have put in absolutely no effort in saying that it doesn't produce pixel-faithful documents, such as producing a single concrete example.
        deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
jstanley 4mo ago
"LLMs are amazing, I'm so much more productive now" "oh yeah? Show me what you made, you can't, nobody can, it's all just AI psychosis" "I made a pixel perfect Office document viewer" "well... I wish you hadn't"
- NetOpWibby 4mo ago
  “If you use LLMs, you’re not a real developer, you’re lazy.” The best developers are lazy.
  - StableAlkyne 4mo ago
    Obligatory: https://xkcd.com/378/ https://xkcd.com/378/
gosub100 4mo ago
I'm fine with that, even as someone who hates AI.
dizhn 4mo ago
Total "Damn if I do, damn if I don't" situation . I put a similar disclaimer on my AI stuff too. It would be much easier if they didn't mention it. But if they're like me, they want to give people the means for an informed decision. We can respect that and move on. Do we even know if actual big software companies aren't doing it?
userbinator 4mo ago
As others here have already mentioned, it doesn't work all that well either, proving that AI can't replace humans completely.

which means it probably gets all the halucinated assets correctly and any real world documents wrong. Still, looks pretty; if it actually has proper testing, could close the gap. Code not being the hard part is a major impediment to good software coming out of these things.

isubkhankulov 4mo ago

Would this project exist otherwise? i doubt it

llukas 4mo ago

Would author be able to do it otherwise? Is particular tool choice making result worse? Bit identical/pixel-faithful reproductions are easy to verify…

applfanboysbgon 4mo ago
> Is particular tool choice making result worse? Well, yes, because it doesn't work. > Bit identical/pixel-faithful reproductions are easy to verify… And yet the prompter put so little effort in they couldn't even verify the software they prompted for does what it's supposed to.
- NewsaHackO 4mo ago
  Why do you say it doesn't work? It seems to work fine for the feature parity they claim.
  - doubletwoyou 4mo ago
    For “pixel-faithful” documents it doesn’t seem to be replicating documents all too well based on the many other testimonies in these comments
    - NewsaHackO 4mo ago
      >doesn’t seem to be replicating documents all too well based on the many other testimonies in these comments Ironic, that you are agreeing with a post saying they put in little effort for the implementation when you have put in absolutely no effort in saying that it doesn't produce pixel-faithful documents, such as producing a single concrete example.
      - deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]

jstanley 4mo ago

"LLMs are amazing, I'm so much more productive now" "oh yeah? Show me what you made, you can't, nobody can, it's all just AI psychosis" "I made a pixel perfect Office document viewer" "well... I wish you hadn't"

NetOpWibby 4mo ago
“If you use LLMs, you’re not a real developer, you’re lazy.” The best developers are lazy.
- StableAlkyne 4mo ago
  Obligatory: https://xkcd.com/378/ https://xkcd.com/378/

gosub100 4mo ago

I'm fine with that, even as someone who hates AI.

dizhn 4mo ago

Total "Damn if I do, damn if I don't" situation . I put a similar disclaimer on my AI stuff too. It would be much easier if they didn't mention it. But if they're like me, they want to give people the means for an informed decision. We can respect that and move on. Do we even know if actual big software companies aren't doing it?

userbinator 4mo ago

As others here have already mentioned, it doesn't work all that well either, proving that AI can't replace humans completely.