A lot of methods of expressing software ideas are also very inefficient. The actual interesting part, the entropy, is very small. In the demo it’s literally two sliders controlling two CSS attributes which is not a lot of bits of entropy in a UI specification. With an appropriate UI specification language, that would be, what, three lines of code? Needing to manage Web UI boilerplate is where the difficulty is.
I blame Microsoft for having five different UI toolkits across three languages. Web browsers aren't that cross platform, is the GUI toolkit that is, so use that!
Which of the 7251 reactive JS frameworks do you want to pair with which of the 15281 css frameworks to achieve the result?
Lets make ourselves redundant. At least I won't have to relearn JS every 2 weeks.
Don't worry, in 5 years it will just be another layer in the JS dev stack, so then not only the version of npm, dependencies, docker, and 3 API keys have to match but you'll also need the correct commit of the 20GB LLM so the build doesn't fail. All for the sake of simplicity and increased productivity, of course.
We’ll have dependency files for LLMs in our mixture of experts config and we’ll get paged at 2am to update a version of an LLM because there’s a new social engineering CVE making it vulnerable to disclosing secrets.
I was discussing with a client how to integrate our software with his. He sent me a screenshot of the main form. I put the screenshot into ChatGPT and said “make a react form like this in bootstrap”. Made some adjustments, added my software, a few hours later showed the client who was knocked out to see a proof of concept of our systems integrated so quickly. When doing web development I often take a screenshot of a…
If this was an e-mail or chat conversation with a client, imagine if your client was asking ChatGPT the best way to formulate his requirements to you.
I just see this as a tool to help make UI designers (and maybe POs) look smart and competent, but the real work is going to go to the programmers, just as it does today. UI designers will be able to give a "demo" but how will this basic functionality translate to the rest of the app? It won't.
I hate it when designers present what looks like polished and complete UIs in Figma. To the execs it looks like a finished product which frequently creates unreasonable expectations that interfere with what should be the iterative nature of UI design.
I don’t know how many times I’ve come across a project where a terrible system design was foisted on a group of engineers because of the constraints required by a Figma design that was blessed by some exec or other.
Granted there are worse problems in these orgs, but easy high fidelity
mock-ups vs wire frames has made it worse.
I was discussing with a client how to integrate our software with his. He sent me a screenshot of the main form. I put the screenshot into ChatGPT and said “make a react form like this in bootstrap”. Made some adjustments, added my software, a few hours later showed the client who was knocked out to see a proof of concept of our systems integrated so quickly. When doing web development I often take a screenshot of a…
Yes, the customer will be impressed by your speed the first time. The second time, he will expect it. The third time, when requirements have grown enough to be beyond what ChatGPT can deal with, he'll be angry that timescales have exploded.
I don't know if "do everything manually and slowly so that you never have to set realistic expectations" is a great way to do business. Being worse at your job on purpose isn't typically a great strategy.
It sounds to me like the commenter has found a subset of his work which can be sped up significantly with chatGPT and is using that to continue conversations with a potential client. Pretty cool if you ask me.
I was discussing with a client how to integrate our software with his. He sent me a screenshot of the main form. I put the screenshot into ChatGPT and said “make a react form like this in bootstrap”. Made some adjustments, added my software, a few hours later showed the client who was knocked out to see a proof of concept of our systems integrated so quickly. When doing web development I often take a screenshot of a…
Yes, the customer will be impressed by your speed the first time. The second time, he will expect it. The third time, when requirements have grown enough to be beyond what ChatGPT can deal with, he'll be angry that timescales have exploded.
This comment is so relevant.. people underestimate software complexity. In software services, often it's not the algorithms that are hard to implement or maintain, as they often have very clearly defined input and output requirements, and you can and test them, but its the ever changing and regularly patched up business logic that evolves the system into a complex and fragile service needing careful maintenance..
Can't imagine an AI system taking 'charge' there as a subtle mistake by the AI system would then need a human intervention to 'fix' it which by then would be close to impossible.
At that point you can't also make use of AI beyond a co-pilot role as anything complex would need line by line and careful inspection by a software dev.
Such recent demos show both how impressively ML/AI has advanced recently, and how unimpressively repetitive and unoriginal tasks keep being reimplemented by millions of developers worldwide. Since most UI screens can be accurately described in one or two paragraphs, it's no wonder they can be represented in much detail in a relatively small embedding vector.
Huh? UIs should be repetitive not impressive or original, so users don't have to learn different new interface for every app.
UIs should be repetitive, but we keep reinventing them anyway to satisfy the vanity of product owners/designers/managers/clients/... and built entire industries around making slightly the UIs slightly more differently than the last time.
Such recent demos show both how impressively ML/AI has advanced recently, and how unimpressively repetitive and unoriginal tasks keep being reimplemented by millions of developers worldwide. Since most UI screens can be accurately described in one or two paragraphs, it's no wonder they can be represented in much detail in a relatively small embedding vector.
People used to write assembly language manually too, writing the most simple control structures over and over hand crafted for each case. This is even more automation of drudgery and easy repetitive work.
I welcome these tools but when you need to be completely accurate with something, you have to drop the nice graphical tool and actually edit code.. and then it's a mess. Either the code is super complex to humans or going back to graphical mode breaks everything.