Seeing so many ads for them was an immediate red flag for me. Clearly they were trying to milk more sign ups out of their promise before people started to realize it was a joke.
I don't think it is a joke. It is classic AI marketing.
From what I can tell their 'AI' chooses colors, and fonts and does some basic layout. All three bits can be done very simply. So you choose a template, it stores a few basic qualities, then uses those qualities later to choose how to parameterise its tools for adding new content to your site.
It's not strong AI, you might want to claim it isn't AI at all. But even backtracking best-first search qualifies as 80s-era symbolic AI. I don't think you need to have an undergrad CompSci to do that. My AI textbook is used by plenty of non-graduates, I certainly hope it contains enough to implement those kinds of tools without my readers needing advanced degrees or research credentials!
So I found the article overly cynical: I don't think they're claiming it will translate your human language into a site. I didn't get that claim, at least. I interpreted it as them using the inherent magicness of 'artificial intelligence' as a marketing term, confusing together things that their tool will do, with things that the AI code will do.
Overhyped product which is a big UX investment masquerading as technical IP? Definitely! A scam with no intent to deliver? I don't think so.
My first reaction seeing the video a few months ago was 'clever'. Not 'clever' as in 'clever AI or tech', but 'a neat use of very simple AI tools with a UX focus to make blogging / portfolio software a bit more flexible.'
They explicitly say that it doesn't use templates in the video. If you assume that part's bullshit then everything else is plausible, but if one of the first things they say about the produce is a lie...
Define 'template'. I'm sure there is a definition of 'template' such that they aren't using them. They're not, for example, using templates in the Wordpress sense of 'here is where blog post goes'. The video shows a selection of 'styles' which have clearly been designed, and shows the user selecting one. If you want to s/template/style in my comment, I'm fine with that.
In marketing, things are very rarely true or false. You use words in a particular sense to convey a message. You might say 'no templates', meaning 'no fixed structure templates', to convey the idea that it is very dynamic. That doesn't mean 'there is no hand-authored structure at any point', or 'the user does not chose from a range of design styles'.
Saying 'no templates' could mean 'no fixed templates' or 'we use styles not templates, a style is a general set of rules for how things are laid out, not a rigid structure'.
Not in websites, but I've build procedural content creation systems using hierarchical planners. To get really good effects they still run on what I'd call templates, they just are templates designed to work with the algorithm.
No coding, definitely, for the end user. They're not suggesting this isn't coded by someone. Just not coded afresh for each output: you build a parameterised algorithm that can generate a class of different outputs. The end user only deals with the parameters.
From what I can tell their 'AI' chooses colors, and fonts and does some basic layout. All three bits can be done very simply. So you choose a template, it stores a few basic qualities, then uses those qualities later to choose how to parameterise its tools for adding new content to your site.
It's not strong AI, you might want to claim it isn't AI at all. But even backtracking best-first search qualifies as 80s-era symbolic AI. I don't think you need to have an undergrad CompSci to do that. My AI textbook is used by plenty of non-graduates, I certainly hope it contains enough to implement those kinds of tools without my readers needing advanced degrees or research credentials!
So I found the article overly cynical: I don't think they're claiming it will translate your human language into a site. I didn't get that claim, at least. I interpreted it as them using the inherent magicness of 'artificial intelligence' as a marketing term, confusing together things that their tool will do, with things that the AI code will do.
Overhyped product which is a big UX investment masquerading as technical IP? Definitely! A scam with no intent to deliver? I don't think so.
My first reaction seeing the video a few months ago was 'clever'. Not 'clever' as in 'clever AI or tech', but 'a neat use of very simple AI tools with a UX focus to make blogging / portfolio software a bit more flexible.'
[edit: add last para]