AI agents produce slop when not restricted. Here are 10 things to watch out for
241 comments
The other version of it is the robot over-indexing on some part of the prompt and leaving comments places. An example is I ask it to prefer integration tests using TestContainers, it starts adding comments to every new test saying “Real services, no mocks” or something.
And yes, I have a line in my *.MD saying not to do that.
And btw, if you have slop comments in your PR, you'll get a review from an agent (my company pay for it). I won't bother to read if you didn't bother either.
"Here's the argument, in plain terms", "It's not just X, it's Y", "It's worth stating precisely", "The sharper distinction here"... They're things that gesture toward the relationship between the text and the prompt, making it clear where it matched the author's expectations and where it deviated.
Not that humans are immune from coding/writing for their boss instead of their user/reader!
Any vibe coded site that deals with files and works client-side feels an INCESSANT need to inform you of this fact.
Definitely seems like the same kind of context leakage. “I don’t want to spin up a server, can you make it work in the browser?”
But otherwise the website looks pretty great. Vibe coded websites usually transmit the feeling of: "nobody even bothered to look at this", and that's not the case with yours at all.
In your lists where elements are separated by horizontal lines, I would remove the horizontal line after the last element. That's quite easy in CSS.
Overall, the "rhythm" is a bit off. The user should know what they're seeing even before they see it, at least conceptually. The design/layout doesn't section off dense sections from skim material. Front pages in general should be built for skimming rather than deep consumption (scanning). Scanning should appear optional visually.
There's a lot of "scan" material, but users who visit your site mostly just want to know what they're looking at - at least at first. So the deep material kinda just gets in the way of actual comprehension.
Another critique: too much visual uniformity. Every major section looks the same (poor "rhythm"). This leads the eyes to glaze over much of the site.
It sounds dumb, but our eyes don't "read" a webpage, we "see/feel" it instead. We see structure, layout, differences in colors, font sizes, patterns, bold headings, etc. We ignore the actual textual content. We only do actual reading when we're hunting for something specific (eg, a specific nav link).
The aesthetic itself is fine, but the layout and structure need work.
Not to mention that all caps text is also generally associated with shouting and just feels rude to some readers.
[0] Or more accurately trained on all the bad examples before experts started catching them and has stuck to the mistake.
Good aesthetic, just overused.
Much of this is it's a simple problem to solve - just prompt agent of choice "Put all user visible text into a translation file for i10n" and then go through and edit said prose as a human.
Less than a year later I am embarrassed how Claude it looks - blinking dot in the corner, double // separating header text, the font choices... now I see the same patterns everywhere, and I'm sure the audience is picking up on it too.
I still use Claude in my work, but a lot more sparingly; I ask for color scheme and font suggestions (no Rajdhani or Share Tech Mono!), but they're mostly for inspiration and I'm not blindly copying them. It feels like I'm being smarter about it, but maybe in a year I'll realize I still haven't climbed out of the trap :)
Read the full thread on Hacker News →
Related stories
- The Verge · 0 points · 2 days ago
- Can you forget how you feel about Meta?theverge.comThe Verge · 0 points · 9 days ago
- The Verge · 0 points · 4 days ago
- Can John Ternus find Apple’s next big thing?theverge.comThe Verge · 0 points · 9 days ago
- Hacker News · 73 points · 8 days ago
- The Verge · 0 points · 11 days ago