Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's ability to handle non-90 degree cutouts and shapes for web dev is one of the best I've seen. The vision model on this is VERY capable.

Here's an image design source of truth: https://image.non.io/78f4cd8b-2560-4643-9a51-96a89171f994.we...

And here's the page it build from it: https://image.non.io/e7d3a9e5-f9df-4fd8-b79f-1f90280f978f.we...

Note the flowing svg lines, and how accurately it recreated them. Here's Opus 5 for comparison - you can really see how while Astra really recreated the flow that was in the original design, opus only got the general vibe: https://image.non.io/dfe13de0-4487-431f-8b69-544ff3030dac.we...

One thing I will say is you are paying for quality. That site build cost $24 - extremely non-trivial for a simple frontend.



> That site build cost $24 - extremely non-trivial for a simple frontend.

I would say that $24 is trivial IF that's the final design. The truth is that the cost doesn't leave much room for error or experimentation.


A bespoke design like that a year ago would have cost $200-2000+ between design and development. Hell, it probably still does unless the person wanting the design is already a developer who knows how to prompt.

Everything costs more now than it did a year ago... except for THIS, and we are still complaining that a 90-99% reduction in cost is STILL too expensive. And a 50-75% reduction in time is STILL too long.

We used to have to wait for weeks for a design like that when I worked at a consultancy, and that is a week of salary. For the design, then it got handed off to a front end developer to slice it and get built so the back end developer can hook it up to a CRM. We are talking a month turn around with design, revisions, development, testing, and bug fixing.

It can now be done in a couple of hours for less than a single hour's cost. If it were 10x slower and 10x more expensive, it would STILL be "good deal".


Wdym no room for error or experimation? Changes are even cheaper, and in my experience they are faster and way cheaper with models than with designers.


Plus you can offload a lot of work to a cheaper model

> truth is that the cost doesn't leave much room for error or experimentation

Compared to what?


A cheap Chinese model, of course.

>> The truth is that the cost doesn't leave much room for error or experimentation

Yeah if you are solo developer without budget.

For any business this is nothing, the ROI is massive.


I don't get it. For me it seems Opus was more accurate in terms of for example this small building in the right down corner


I would say opus was in some ways more accurate, but missed the higher level curvature feel of the site that astra picked up on.

It sounds completely trivial and likely I'm wrong here, but could it be that opus saw the reference image squished? That might explain the sharper horizontal curvature


Opus 5 is quite good, and has been the SOTA for this test (by my own subjective comparison) for the last few months. One thing it's always struggled with though is recreating smooth SVG curves/cutouts.

Another way to think about it is you could prompt Astra to put the building back in. You couldn't prompt Opus 5 to get the correct curvature of the line / cutout. That part has always been a huge struggle for models.


They look pretty similar to me, I'm not sure what you're seeing that is so much better.


Also the curves and background lines that separate the right image from the left content


Check the source oft the laser beams.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: