But this thread is a bit like the "I could have drawn that" comment you hear from Average Joe saying about a Mondrian painting. Yes, you can mimic something (with or without AI) but you wouldn't have made _this_.
Don't get me wrong the 0->1 copycat site is impressive, but it lacks a lot of attention to detail the original has.
The art and engineer snob voice in me is also causing a bit of cognitive dissonance about this though. C'est la vie, funny times we live in
As for the animations...
The second animation is a bit more... High fidelity in some areas? I don't know what to even call it. The clash of different pixel art styles is what I find jarring[^1].
But I guess my point was that neither animation is even _good_... Like both of them barely pass a cursory glance; there's lot of nonsense going on in both of them, that wouldn't get past any animator. So, I wouldn't say one is better or worse; they just different
[^1]: Edit for context, I used and even made _a lot_ of pixel art in primary school and my teens lol
They are correct though that these days you can navigate away from the slop pages that gpt 5 put out pretty effectively, and land on something that really is quite decent. The page I made is a great starting point for 60s of effort on my part.
I had gemini describe this webpage as prompts, then fed it into an image -> code pipeline. Note that this is with 0 input from me:
https://html.non.io/railcode-example
This is with Opus 5.5 building it out on low effort, and yes the spec was already made from the original site, but 0->1 that doesn't result in purple gradients or claude brown is very much possible now.