I'm a mechanical engineer who has written similar tools for work and hobbies. Producing pretty pictures does not mean that the model is physically accurate. Unfortunately, such tools seem be evaluated much more on flashiness and not on more reliable and objective criteria like physical accuracy based on verification and validation test suites. I'm seeing that in the comments here. I don't think LLMs make what I do irrelevant, but I have thought that I'm going to have to improve how flashy my simulations look to compete better with non-experts who use LLMs.
reply> I don't think LLMs make what I do irrelevant, but I have thought that I'm going to have to improve how flashy my simulations look to compete better with non-experts who use LLMs.
replyThis scares me more than "LLMs replace humans". You're going to have to take away time from doing the actual work to replace it with doing bullshit work to impress an ever more detached "decision" layer.
I don't even think the posted page qualifies as a "simulation". It's at best an animation with a calculator/model side-by-side.
The aesthetic is what I get any time I ask for something UI-like in Claude. But gosh darn it I like the look.
replyIt's almost weird hard Claude trends towards that look.
replyIt's so distinct... it can't be an amalgam of the most popular design choices, can it?
Some of it is part of claude code's built-in instructions: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/blob/main/plugins/...
reply "For calibration: AI-generated design right now clusters around three looks: (1) a warm cream background (near #F4F1EA) with a high-contrast serif display and a terracotta accent; (2) a near-black background with a single bright acid-green or vermilion accent; (3) a broadsheet-style layout with hairline rules, zero border-radius, and dense newspaper-like columns."