Maybe you want your wedding website to look different to other people’s?

Unless you’re drawing a massive illustration or specifically going with a non-wedding themed wedding, there’s only so many variations you’re going to end up with.

Dude it’s 2026 not 2024. I know things are changing rapidly but that has been very obviously not true for at least 6 months.

Since this is such a cookie cutter argument, see last week’s response about the same thing: https://programming.dev/post/57569685/26396986.

You’re going to be shocked.

I’m constantly shocked at the bad code I get from other using the latest models. See one of my parent comments in the same linked comment, each of the four projects came from people using the latest models.

Why would you not reuse event pages for the next event?

How many times are you getting married? 😄

Let me fix that for you: How many times are people getting married?

The answer: Lots.

There are already wedding websites out there, in every variation possible.

Why reinvent the wheel when we have so many wheels that they’re treated as disposable?

I’d expect that the code would be almost exactly the same as other code that already exists, in which case, why not use that code?

Uhm, because it’s not the same? Why would I vibe code an app that’s almost exactly the same as an existing one?

Because a vibecoded app is going to be a ripoff of its training data anyway. LLMs can’t produce creative or novel works, all they can do is stochastically regurgitate what they’ve already seen in their training data. So why deal with risk of injection attacks hidden in the training data when you can just use the original source instead?

There’s not really any such thing as a one off web page.

Of course there is. What an absurd thing to say. A very obvious example is event websites, e.g. for weddings.

Why would you not reuse event pages for the next event?

Maybe it depends on the language but I’ve recently vibe coded two tools in Rust and I’ve skimmed the code and it’s perfectly good Rust. I would accept it in a PR - even if I was being as picky as I’d really like to be in reviews. I don’t think that would have been the case 3 months ago though.

I’d expect that the code would be almost exactly the same as other code that already exists, in which case, why not use that code?

I too love filling my code with things that silently reduce my understanding improving my code using stochastic prediction models trained on tainted data filled with hidden injection prompt attacks AI

Yeah, but node has no standard library which deno had, and no security model which deno also had. (technically node has a “security model” in name only since it’s broken by design)

You do realize that Photopea is JS running in your browser right, aka it’s slow.

Yes I realise it’s running in a browser.

No it’s not slow.

It’s running 5mb of web assembly, so unless running regular photoshop is using more than 50% of your CPU, you’re not going to notice any slowdowns.

The only time you’re going to notice a slow down is if the thing you’re doing would already be annoying slow in photoshop (e.g. opening >500mb non-raw files, in which case it being slow in a browser wouldn’t matter since you’d be better off processing the files outside of photoshop anyway).

Reposting my relevant comment from yesterday on the Opensource board:

My opinion: this is pointless

LLMs are stochastic regurgitators, but software can already be copy/pasted without cost.

Why should we be interested in an LLM clone of photoshop when there are already clones of photoshop (e.g. https://photopea.com/)?

If I want to use photoshop (or something like it), then I’ll use photoshop (or something like it: i.e. photopea).

There’s literally no point in favour of using the LLM copy, it’s going to have less support and less security (since its training data will have also included prompt injection attacks).

It’s just more of the same, but worse. Even for the sake of argument: if it wasn’t worse, it’d still be more of the same.

I’m not interested in more of the same, I’m interested in things made by people that push the boundaries of what’s possible: (e.g. graphite).

Bruh, use photopea

If you have a browser, you have photoshop.

We don’t need unsafe vibe coded clones, we have clones with actual development and support

I’d agree with you if the thing literally changing wasn’t the placement of the goalposts.

For .one-off web page that is true

There’s not really any such thing as a one off web page.

It’s eventually going to need to be updated or reused for something else.

The only exceptions being if your company goes under, force majure, or if you have something with the same requirements but choose to make the same thing again from scratch for no real reason , which is just being inefficient and unreasonable.

Also the latest models don’t even make a mess any more.

Yeah… I’m calling bullshit on that, all four projects I was handed was made by the latest models and it will continue being an issue for the foreseeable future. (see a previous comment of mine for reasoning: https://programming.dev/post/57569685/26398217)

E.g. for one-off web page design it’s been good enough for a long time.

In just the last two months, I’ve been handed the following web projects:

• A page filled with bootstrap style div-soup
• A page filled with tailwind style class-soup
• A slideshow webapp that has duplicated state and three different ways to change slides (navigate(), goTo(), and changeSlide()).
• A slop-grenade of a chatbot interface for navigating a user through a flow chart, documentation of the flow chart, and documentation of the logic of the flow chart, all of which conflict with each other.

I think the effect you’re seeing is that different people have different levels of “good enough”

I think the effect that I’m seeing is twofold:

1. People don’t realise that every line of code is a liability.
2. People think that once they have something on the screen that looks finished, the project is finished. They haven’t thought about support or maintainability at all, and since they are completely inexperienced about such things: they aren’t qualified enough to when when a project is “even done”, let alone “good enough”.

My opinion: this is pointless

LLMs are stochastic regurgitators, but software can already be copy/pasted without cost.

Why should we be interested in an LLM clone of photoshop when there are already clones of photoshop (e.g. https://photopea.com/)?

If I want to use photoshop (or something like it), then I’ll use photoshop (or something like it: i.e. photopea).

There’s literally no point in favour of using the LLM copy, it’s going to have less support and less security (since its training data will have also included prompt injection attacks).

It’s just more of the same, but worse. Even for the sake of argument: if it wasn’t worse, it’d still be more of the same.

I’m not interested in more of the same, I’m interested in things made by people that push the boundaries of what’s possible: (e.g. graphite).

There’s enough photoshop clones (e.g. photopea) and tutorials written out there that the LLMs would have been trained on.

There’s no actual need for an agent to have any interaction with photoshop itself.

It’s clear you have no idea what you’re talking about. […] You do understand that this is a rapidly developing technology right? That it’s getting better weekly?

This is literally the retort that moves the goalposts.

You can’t just bury your head in the sand and tell yourself that LLMs are still just “advanced autocomplete” anymore.

I made no claim that LLMs haven’t changed, I make the claim that others are making claims that fall apart once examined.

The claims others make:

1. AI is amazing because now it can make this thing

2. Oh, the only reason doesn’t hold up to scrutiny this one time is because of {insert goal post moving here}.

Argument 1 falls apart when looking inside the product (i.e. the shit sandwich, the slop grenade, etc…).

Argument 2 is circular, so I’m not going to waste time on it.

But just for the sake of argument, lets say there’s some sudden release of a model tomorrow that runs one million times better than today’s best model and everyone only uses that model from now on. Will I still be handed a shit sandwich?

Yes.

Why?

Because the fact that I’m handed a shit sandwich isn’t influenced by how good the model is. It’s based on the fact that English is a terrible language for logic.

We discovered this in the 60s and 70s. Computer programming was too hard in the 50s and only getting harder, so everyone got together and tried to make a programming language out of English, that way everyone could do it. That’s literally how the Cobol language came to be. It was sold to everyone on the idea that anyone could create something with a fuzzy human readable language called English.

What did we learn? English is both a terrible programming language and a terrible specification language, Non-programmers (managers, general workers, etc…) fall prey to things like the xy problem, understanding gaps, intention gaps, etc… and so can’t end up with a new good product by giving orders. The scars of that delusion are still felt in our banking system today. Every lesson learned by Non-programmers in the goal of getting a good program turns them lesson by lesson into programmers, and at that point you’re just programming by hand anyway.

The same lessons were rediscovered in the 80s by people trying to program by spreadsheets and GUI-only app builders, the 2010s with the no code movement, it’s currently being rediscovered in the 2020s with LLMs, and it’ll be rediscovered again by a new generation in the 2040s once those with the experience and learned wisdom of last time retire out of the industry and the few remaining are outnumbered and dismissed as religious zealots.

I responded in the other comment

“You’re not using the latest model”, “You’re holding it wrong”, etc…

It’s the same shit, different day.

I’m consistently told LLM generated code is the best thing since sliced bread, and people keep handing me “proof”, yet every time I open what they’ve handed me, I see a shit sandwich.

And as soon as I point that out, the goalposts are moved yet again, ad infinitum.

These are good, assuming you’re taking the care to see which ones are supported.

Kevin Powell’s youtube is worth a shoutout here since he has showcases of his and other’s new techniques that become available because of these new rules (he’s more interested in applications rather than new rules themselves).

That’s right, move those goalposts!

That’s a pretty weird thing to claim.

Busses are a great way to reduce traffic in places that are already built.

Also batteries in busses tend to be cheaper per kg than in cars since there’s more room (so lower density needed), and they can have slower charging cycles (because they already sit in depots for long periods).