The one thing that strikes me as LLMesque is the occasional use of random and seemingly inappropriate symbols. For instance the lightning bolt and then the arrow/square by the order ahead label by the start an order button. It's also placed in a slightly odd location. The symbols at the top are also kind of weird. I think it's the LLM trying to allude to the cyberpunk theme, but it does a poor job of it in a way that even a low skill human probably wouldn't - because you just wouldn't think to put a part of a rectangle up there beside a checkerboard pyramid thing.
And that contrasts to an extreme degree against the rest of the scene which flows extremely well, maintains perfectly color coordination, and so on. I think it's kind of like how self driving cars can drive phenomenally well but then have occasional failure modes like randomly driving head first into a concrete divider. It's not like that's bad driving in the sense of missing a nuance, but something that's just completely conspicuously outside the rest of its demonstrated abilities.
Yeah polish + consistency but also with busy-ness is a hallmark from what I've seen. It can be tamed, but takes effort.
That said, the provided examples definitely are a clear step up from the "default" you'd get. Like how some bootstrap-templated sites did it much better than others, while the best made it nearly invisible.
What you said made me think that it's similar (not entirely the same, but adjacent) to those make-a-website for $XX or buy-a-template era of websites.
If we think about that as the intended competition (and not websites corps spent millions on design/polish/copy), I'd argue that AI (model + coding agent + skills + whatever) is doing a better job overall. Most agencies don't spend enough effort in understanding what you want, or hire juniors and bill them as seniors. It's almost always late, overbilled, somewhat what you said you wanted but not really, and technically terrible.
The Neon Ramen example look really cool at first glance, but if you spend more than a second or 5 looking at it you keep finding visual glitches, inconsistent design, and elements which don't belong. It's nice for a brainstorming phase, but that's about it.
If you were to go with a buy-a-template you'd probably end up with a less flashy design, but at least it'd be consistent. Those templates are built by combining standard styled elements to create a bunch of common design patterns. Sure, nothing looks great, but nothing looks bad either!
If you don't really care about a website, going for a ready-made template is by far the safer, easier, and cheaper option. And if you go for something like Squarespace, you don't even need an agency at all.
I'd clock this as an AI website with no question whatsoever. Everything comes in punchy threes. I don't need to know what "早い・旨い・熱い" means in order to smell it for what it is.
They both read as hyper-polished pastiches of existing, well-established aesthetics. The cyberpunk one in particular employs just about every genre trope I can think of. There's no sense of stylistic ingenuity or choice - e.g. deliberately breaking from convention or leaving things out.
> There's no sense of stylistic ingenuity or choice - e.g. deliberately breaking from convention or leaving things out.
Is stylistic ingenuity, breaking from convention, or leaving things out on a website for a Ramen restaurant chain a feature or a bug? I'd choose to go based on the quality of the food not how unusual the website UI is. The website is not the product.
I personally find navigating and ordering food on restaurant websites that don't use standard conventions a frustrating experience.
The website is not the product, but it does suggest something about the way your restaurant operates and how it is trying to present itself. You don't know the quality of the food before you go.
This summer I've noticed a lot of menus with AI generated images of food and I have not trusted a single one of them. If you are gonna pitch me with this thing that blatantly is not even tangentially related to your actual product, that does not give me a lot of confidence in your business. If they'd used a stock image of a carbonara I would be none the wiser, but the entirely fake stuff is a massive turnoff.
Some of the best restaurants I know have old timey bare bones websites because they've been around for decades, and it's an oddly good predictor of a place that has a lot of loyal customers.
If I saw a website that looked like the ones above, I would be immediately skeptical. Handmade but rudimentary says down-to-business no nonsense, shiny and nicely made by a pro says high effort. This stuff? It says slop shop.
The design, no. The content? “Cyberpunk ramen, street side. Bold flavors. Fast pickup.” Oh my god yes.
The thing that really gets me about this stuff is - is all about the content, the actual content is what really matters, you need to have content that actually works, that people find appealing, otherwise you have dogshit. A staccato bullet point of marketing speak is dog shit. It’s nothing, it’s less than nothing, customers are repulsed by it, and rightly so. bad presentation you can sometimes get away with, but bad content? Almost never. And this is bad (LLM generated) content, at a glance.
And that contrasts to an extreme degree against the rest of the scene which flows extremely well, maintains perfectly color coordination, and so on. I think it's kind of like how self driving cars can drive phenomenally well but then have occasional failure modes like randomly driving head first into a concrete divider. It's not like that's bad driving in the sense of missing a nuance, but something that's just completely conspicuously outside the rest of its demonstrated abilities.