|
|
|
|
|
|
by reilly3000
3949 days ago
|
|
|
It seems to me that reacting to their marketing and reacting to their implementation approach are two different transactions. I'm a backer and am very impressed with their tech: noflo and constraint based style sheets and not only novel, they are very functional. And the idea that web publishing should abstract presentation away from content isn't new, but their implementation is very clean and emphasizes minimal friction for authoring, curating and sharing content with a self-hosted site. They have built a platform like tumblr but automation around styling and image processing. They store content as md files hosted in git and feed those into functions that do a nice job of automating presentation of that content according to some best practices and image processing that uses established AI technology. Take out the AI for color processing and you really have just a nifty publishing workflow that has built-in imagemagick support. My understanding of their challenges in shipping have little to do with some AI grand vision and more to do with color theory. They have trained their ANN to pick the best color based on given inputs but the outputs doesn't always yield pleasing color combinations. The challenge is making colors work well with the supporting image of a content block while still being cohesive with adjacent blocks and the overall site. They should probably try solving for every style at the page level rather than trying to coordinate between blocks. The flashy marketing video is doing its job: capturing interest and building support that leads to conversion. AI means something to somebody who is tired of wordpress and Facebook that is very different than a CS person that works on machine learning. I hope they pull it off. I would be pretty shocked if they didn't, given the have come this far. I don't think that developers having thin social profiles is any indication that the project isn't going to be successful. |
|
|
Sure, maybe the site will automagically "adapt" as you load more pictures, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and you might think that it looks ugly. And maybe how the site "optimizes" for particular goals is by using some canned stock phrases that you don't like and you can't customize.
Or maybe it will do the job implied by the marketing video. There's no way to know! No money-back guarantee (and if the company goes bankrupt, no recourse in any case).
Is that really worth $96? I personally don't think so. I'd much rather wait until it's done --- especially since they have VC funding --- and then decide for myself whether the resulting product is fit for purpose.