[sashank_1509]

Aside and maybe controversial:

If I didn’t know that the author used AI, then I would have liked this way more. But that is because I would assume the author did this on his own and that would feel like a cool quirky thing to do. I just don’t care for a cool quirky thing if an AI made it.

[jgrahamc]

Without Claude I wouldn't have made this because I wouldn't have wanted to spend the time. Claude allowed me to try something out and I spent time with Claude experimenting with different ideas (for example, at one point I had it tile the entire plane with periodic tables but the effect wasn't as good as the single periodic table I ended up using).

In a very short period of time I got to try many different ideas and create the final site. The ideas were all mine, the implementation was Claude's. I view this as wonderful: I had an idea and was able to iterate an implementation very rapidly. I can't turn my back on a tool that helps me create more.

PS If it's any consolation, my blog posts are all hand written. I don't use AI for any of the prose; I do use a spell checker.

[sanderjd]

Yep, this is how AI has been impacting my experience at my job as well. For a given time and quality budget, we can now say "yes" to more projects. Often that means holding the time and quality constant and doing things we wouldn't have previously done at all. Other times it means holding time constant and increasing quality by spending more time refactoring, testing, fixing longer tail bugs, etc.

[stavros]

I'm with you, comments like the GP are just demands on the time of people who make things. For years, everyone here was adamant that founders made the company, even if they hired developers to write the actual code.

You made a cool thing, I like it. I don't care how you made it, the more cool things we have, the better for everyone. If you don't think this thing is cool, downvote and move on.

[HiroProtagonist]

I don't think it is necessarily controversial, but I subscribe to the opposite view. I try to judge a thing by whether or not it is good, not by its provenance.

For example, if I read a book which I thought was written by a human and loved it, why should my opinion change if I learned after the fact that it was written by AI and not a human? I can't un-laugh those laughs, and un-enjoy the enjoyment I received from it, you know what I mean?

[tiagod]

Imagine you really enjoyed your meal at a restaurant, and in the end the waiter tells you it's made of people. Is it still a good meal, and most importantly, would you recommend it to other people?

[drugstorecowboy]

I really don't think this is the same thing. A closer analogy would be you enjoy your meal at a restaurant, and at the end the waiter tells you the chef was a robot. Why should the provenance of something make any difference at all? If the author of your favorite book was convicted of some terrible crime, would the book you loved so much before you heard the news suddenly lose all its value to you?

[RationPhantoms]

> I just don’t care for a cool quirky thing if an AI made it.

While I understand the knee-jerk reaction, especially to writing, people make about AI, it's starting to have a counter-effect on me.

A brush can destroy (sweep) or create (paint) but it's still a tool.

[isatty]

I don't like AI - but I also can't (wont) write web pages. This seems to be the best of both worlds.

[telotortium]

I care more if AI was used to churn out a bunch of slop writing, mostly because of the lack of an authorial voice, which causes most of the writing to suck. Code is different - I have never cared about how much or how little effort went into a coding project, unless the point is supposed to be a puzzle - so I literally don’t care if people use AI for their projects, only if the idea behind the demo is cool.