Thread

1. jjcm · 1790726436 · focus · HN ↗

   It looks like a lot of their early attemps are early gpt outputs or claude design outputs, which have a lot of the same smell. People are discounting how good image->html flows are these days though.

   I had gemini describe this webpage as prompts, then fed it into an image -> code pipeline. Note that this is with 0 input from me:

   <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;html.non.io&#x2F;railcode-animated" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;html.non.io&#x2F;railcode-animated

   This is with Opus 5.5 building it out on low effort, and yes the spec was already made from the original site, but 0-&gt;1 that doesn&#x27;t result in purple gradients or claude brown is very much possible now.

   1. zeroonetwothree · 1790726713 · focus · HN ↗

      Honestly looks better than the original

      1. seizethecheese · 1790731290 · focus · HN ↗

         Disagree, the colors are harsh

         1. jjcm · 1790793171 · focus · HN ↗

            I agree the original author&#x27;s post is better than this. I think the point I&#x27;m trying to make is that &quot;vibecoded&quot; landing pages can actually be quite high quality these days, and the author was sandbagging a bit for their point that 0-&gt;1 results are bad (which fair, I&#x27;m guilty of the same).

            They are correct though that these days you can navigate away from the slop pages that gpt 5 put out pretty effectively, and land on something that really is quite decent. The page I made is a great starting point for 60s of effort on my part.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.