upvote

points

by mazieres18 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby srcoder15 hours ago|
next
[-]
Nice tool, def gonna try it. I was looking for the source and it took a while before I found the github(0) link. Like a lot software, I like to take a look at source. Maybe you can make it more prominent on the website

0: https://github.com/stanford-scs/jai

reply
upvoteby Nifty392918 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Indeed!

Kinda reminds me of this: https://m.xkcd.com/932/

I'm not a web UI guy either, and I am so, so happy to let an AI create a nice looking one for me. I did so just today, and man it was fast and good. I'll check it for accuracy someday...

reply
upvoteby timeinput4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I've been building my own tooling doing similar sorts of things -- poorly with scripts and podman / buildkit as well as LD_PRELOAD related tools, and definitely clicked over to HN comments with out reading much of the content because I thought "AI slop tool", and the site raised all my hackles as I thought I'll never touch this thing. It'll be easier to write my own than review yet another AI slop tool written by someone who loves AI.

I'm glad I read the HN comments, now I'm excited to review the source.

Thanks for your hard work.

ETA: I like your option parser

reply
upvoteby adi_kurian11 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I think it will, in the modern AI slop era, look more legitimate when the web UI looks a) hand rolled and b) like not much time was spent on it at all. Which makes me a tad embarassed as someone who used to sell fancy websites for a living.
reply
upvoteby lifis17 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
It seems that the LLM has not only designed the site, but also written the text on at least the frontpage, which is a pretty bad signal.

You need to rewrite all the text and Telde it with text YOU would actually write, since I doubt you would write in that style.

reply
upvoteby willy_k16 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Needs to? Is there some new law mandating all landing pages must contain exclusively handwritten text that people haven’t heard of?

To your actual point, the people that would take the landing page being written by an LLM negatively tend to be able to evaluate the project on its true merits, while another substantial portion of the demographic for this tool would actually take that (unfortunately, imo) as a positive signal.

Lastly, given the care taken for the docs, it’s pretty likely that any real issues with the language have been caught and changed.

reply
upvoteby raincole16 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> You need to rewrite

No they don't. The text is very clearly conveying what this project is about. Not everyone needs to cater to weirdos who are obsessed with policing how other people use LLM.

reply
upvoteby john_strinlai17 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
any negative signal you get from the front page should probably end up cancelled out by the whole decades of experience + stanford professor thing.
reply
upvoteby rmunn16 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Except that the "this was generated by an LLM" feeling you get from the front page would then make you automatically question whether the "decades of experience + stanford professor thing", as you put it, was true or just an LLM hallucination.

Author would, indeed, be wise to rewrite all the text appearing on the front page with text that he wrote himself.

reply
upvoteby john_strinlai16 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
>question whether the "decades of experience + stanford professor thing", as you put it, was true or just an LLM hallucination.

the scs.stanford.edu domain and stanford-scs github should help with that.

reply
upvoteby rmunn15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Excellent point, though not everyone pays close enough attention to the domain shown in the browser (if they did, some of the more amateurish phishing attempts would fool a lot fewer people). But yes, anyone who notices the domain will have a clue to the truth.
reply