> Until now, that vision has been bottlenecked on turning fuzzy informal intent into formal, executable code<p>Software has been and always will be fundamentally a problem of communication. What many don't realize is that the true challenge of communication is not one of transmission, but clarity of thought and understanding. Any tool, software language, or AI coder will still be limited by the clarity and completeness of the specs presented. What is software after all but complete and precise specs? Nothing will ever turn your fuzzy intent into your clear best interest. If you don't have clarity of thought, no intelligence in the world can help you.<p>That's not to say I disagree with the author, I agree that more complex creative power will be accessible to a greater number of people, but I think the intrinsic efficiency limit of communication will always be more difficult than people think.
I’m quite sure I don’t want a different bespoke UI for everything. And given the non-deterministic nature of these models it’s going to be different even for the same task. Now instead of hunting for the right buttons after a software “update” with some genius redesign: I’ll be hunting every time I use it? Sounds like a nightmare.<p>I do agree with the author though as to the deficiencies with a purely chat based interface especially for power users or technical interfaces.
It’s simply a non-starter for me. That said LLMs will complement power user interfaces nicely by helping the new user learn them.
Wasn't this the initial promise of Smalltalk, to give end users the ability to easily modify and create their own software to fit their needs for personal computing?