logoalt Hacker News

tmhrtlytoday at 6:31 AM11 repliesview on HN

My concern here is that by gravitating to HTML you lose the ability for a human (you!) to easily co-author the document with the LLM. If it’s just an explainer for your consumption, that’s not a concern - but if it’s a spec sheet for something more complex, I deeply value being able to dive in and edit what is produced for me. With a HTML doc it is much harder to do that than with MD.

Now of course you could just reprompt your LLM to change the HTML - but when I already have a clear idea of what I want to say in my head, that’s just another roadblock in the way.

If this pattern becomes more common I suspect human/LLM co-creation will further dwindle in favour of just delegating voice, tone and content choice to the LLM. I was surprised not to see this concern in the blog post’s FAQ.


Replies

edoloughlintoday at 11:27 AM

I’ve started using HTML for reports recently. But I always use a markdown file as an intermediate and tell the LLM to generate a fancier version of it with SVG for graphs/pictures based on tables in the markdown.

Jakobtoday at 7:04 AM

We have been authoring HTML by hand for decades with ease. Text editors are very good at it, and many have commands to auto-wrap, auto-close etc. Reading and writing is simple.

show 3 replies
9devtoday at 7:13 AM

I suppose that only applies if you constrain yourself to a raw teletypewriter emulator… in any proper coding environment, editing HTML should be absolutely simple - even an embedded WYSIWYG editor would be an option if rich model output is a way we head into.

show 1 reply
adam_patarinotoday at 11:41 AM

It highlights the extremes the anthropic team adopts LLMs in their workflow.

I think most of us live somewhere in the middle, using the right tool / output for the job.

manmaltoday at 8:26 AM

Yes that’s the case. And as Anthropic staff, author has an incentive to promote workflows that require an agent to interact with text documents.

show 2 replies
4k0hztoday at 7:03 AM

Is HTML really that much worse to edit than MD?

show 2 replies
dheeratoday at 11:48 AM

HTML is super human readable if you stick to a subset of it.

It's arguable even more readable.

<b>bold</b> <i>italic</i> <u>underline</u>

I can never remember how many stars and ticks correspond to what in markdown.

awllautoday at 7:50 AM

Makes sense for actual devs. For non-devs who'd just edit docs via LLMs anyway (myself), I can't imagine it'd introduce much friction.

divbzerotoday at 7:18 AM

Yes, and you can always embed HTML in Markdown for <script>, <style>, <svg>, and other tags that cannot be coded in Markdown.

archpulsetoday at 10:41 AM

[flagged]

bigfudgetoday at 6:45 AM

[dead]