I Successfully Recreated the 1996 Space Jam Website with Claude

No, really do it. I’d love this.

But there is nothing culty about saying “an LLM could one-shot this” when it has clearly been demonstrated that an LLM can, in fact, one shot this!

Reading the blog post, prompting Claude setting up Playwright etc. takes at least one hour maybe more? Not seeing where your 5 minutes coming from.

Laziness is one of the three virtues (of a good programmer), but I think Larry didn’t anticipate the current situation when he wrote it:

”The quality that makes you go to great effort to reduce overall energy expenditure. It makes you write labor-saving programs that other people will find useful and document what you wrote so you don't have to answer so many questions about it.”

Looking at the comment, I would argue that it's fairly vague. Maybe it's clear if you have done it but not clear to others type thing.

Then you undercut the advice by adding "I've always wondered if <confident suggestion> would work", making it unclear how much of the advice is a shot in the dark and how much you've actually seen results from that advice.

Claims like "you might even one shot it" also make it seem like simple hype and not the war story of someone who's actually taken the advice.

But you know, people are down voting me for engaging with your question as well so I don't know. Maybe it's all bots these days :p

You could improve it by simply doing the thing you describe and linking to it.

It's a joke, right? A joke similar to this one:

---

> Make me a python script that calculates the value of PI

```python

print("3.1415")

```

"I think it's passable!" <--- The joke

---

If it's not a joke, then it's just sad.

That does not make the title any less clickbaity. Moreover, it does not seem like a vindication of johnfn's original comment.

The outcome does not justify @johnfn's redemption celebration. That's why I decided to give him a heads up.

Aside from that, I think it's a joke. Like the value of pi example I gave in the other comment. If it's not, it is really just sad.

I also don’t think people should vote like that, the problem is there’s no way to enforce such a pattern[1]. Everyone benefits from voting as you describe, but that’s precisely where the prisoner’s dilemma comes into play. There’s also a size component to it. Small, tight knit communities tend to do well with voting, but as communities grow interactions become less personal, trust drops, and the incentive structure I described above becomes dominant. Voting essentially allows a community to establish its own Overton window distinct from what the official rules create, but that can be changed and constricted until a bubble is established[2]. I’ve seen it happen with countless communities across social media. Despite good intentions I think voting systems are a net negative to fostering good discussions and debate.

[1] Maybe AI meta-moderation?

[2] I don’t mean that this is happening intentionally by bad actors, merely that on average large groups produce outcomes that are dictated by incentives.

I actually did read your post and it read to me as if it put in the background to get around some sort of issue with how you took the screenshot, but had still placed the images and text on top. What you wrote was:

    So it kind of cheated, though it clearly felt angst about
    it. After trying a few ways to get the stars to line up 
    perfectly, it just gave up and copied the screenshot in 
    as the background image, then overlaid the rest of the 
    HTML elements on top.

Which is only "kind of" cheating if only the background was wrong. Everything being invisible and in the wrong spot doesn't seem like merely "kind of" cheating. You didn't come anywhere close to addressing the problem that the original post was about.

Apparently it was a table.

The index_tiled.html version correctly positions the original assets, and to me looks as close as you can get to the screenshot while using the original assets (except for the red text).

The version with the screenshot as a background is where it was asked to create an exact match for screenshot that had been scaled/compressed, which isn't really possible any other way. The article acknowledges this one as cheating.

If you look at the diff you'll see that all the planets are off too. So the OP mentioned the starfield but that doesn't explain the planets

> I'm really struggling to believe that anyone would consider this a "coding success".

The index_tiled.html version later in the article is what justifies the success claim IMO, and is the version I think it would've made more sense to host.

The currently hosted index.html just feels like a consequence of the author taking a scaled/compressed screenshot and asking Claude to produce an exact match.

Yeah, same. I thought it was saying it reproduced only the background due to not being able to figure out an offset due to a sloppy initial screenshot or something. Then I was wondering why all the link images looked fuzzy and tried to inspect them and also wondered why the links didn't line up with the buttons either with dev tools open.

On the plus side, it does somewhat explain the weird patterns in his diff image which I had been puzzling over.