So, I do understand people using LLMs to do websites, they want to communicate some idea, and "typing HTML" isn't part of that, fine, use the LLM to slop it together, whatever.
But don't people review these things before they make it public? The website is borderline unreadable, how does this happen? Am I wrong for assuming people generate a website, review it and then deploy it? Do they only review the source, generate a website, asks Claude to review it, Claude says "Looks good" and the author just goes with it?
I'm struggling to understand why so many of the websites are so unreadable, when it's so easy to spot and fix these issues, it's like people are lazymaxxing nowadays, and not even in the fun "I'm a good developer because I'm lazy", just people being lazy-lazy.
There's a lazy habit from some folks to say something they either disagree with or don't understand was "written by AI" without backing up that statement.
I don’t think it’s AI. AI would at least keep the article body consistent with the title even if it had to bend over backward and hallucinate new facts.
>>There's a lazy habit from some folks to say something they either disagree with or don't understand was "written by AI" without backing up that statement.
Thank you for saying this, I keep arguing the same. "This is llm" has become lazy for "I dont like this so I will pretend its llm"
People usually make the determination by reading at least part of the text and then find multiple smoking guns / llm-isms
The comment you responded to did not have those.
Fwiw, the article we're commenting on was likely not LLM written. The sentence structure is too convoluted, no LLM would've generated it like that - unless very carefully prompted ... But at that point it's no longer pure AI slop (imo).
The industry decided a long time ago that sticky sessions was a terrible idea. They only half-solve the problem, while suffering from session loss on server loss and imbalanced load over time.
Isn't the point that you no longer have a connection to the client?
So you can be notified by the database, but you can't (with the stateless HTTP + loadbalancer design explained in the article) get that notification back to the client. Because the client isn't connected anymore; so how does the client know that there's new information?
*I guess there would have to be some mechanism for the database to push notifications to the client. This is not a fundamentally unsolvable or particularly interesting problem.*
Folks will probably say, 'I just use cmux, or tmux, or tabs, or warp'. But I do appreciate it when the original project makes an attempt to solve the problem.
Cloudflare Sessions API and Anthropic Routines have a really similar model. Where they are hosting the 'session store' for you, and giving you access to it over long-polling (or sometimes websockets).
It's a bit harder to do agent presence ('is the agent still there') with this model without heartbeats, but possible.
It's good to see the industry starting to address the "durable sessions" problem, because it sucks.
100% - the argument of the article is that building any feature beyond chat-based-demos on HTTP SSE streaming is super complex. But a lot of folks still want to do it, because that's what their tech stack is. I think it's still a valuable thing to be talking about how you might do that.
I 100% agree with you that in a perfect world the submitter should be doing the review work. But the reality is that we don't live in a perfect world - and just sticking our fingers in our ears and shouting it's not our job isn't going to make data breaches less common or code better quality. Accordingly, if we accept that we can't make vibe coders better stewards (although I absolutely do think we can help in that regard, and I suggest ways to do that in the post), then we have to do our part of improve it somehow.
reply