all the examples for visual UI, are tasks which already are (or soon be) done by the agent, not human. hence not needed.
I suspect that final(*) UI is much more similar to TUI: being kind of conversational (human <> AI). Current GUIs provided by your bank/etc are much less effective/useful for us, comparing to conversation way: 'show/do me sth which I just need'. Not to mention (lack of) walled garden effect, and attention grabbing not in the user interest (popups, self-promo, nagging). Also if taking into account age factor. Also that we do not have to learn, yet another GUI (teach a new bank to your mom ;).
So at least 4 distinct and important advantages for TUI.
My bet: TUI/conversation win (*).
*) there will be some UI where graphical information density is important (air controller?) especially in time critical environments. yet even there I suspect it's more like conversation with dynamic image/report/graph generated on the go. Not the UI per se.
I'm seeing that "great-ai-unlock" is happening. I see in last month a lot of new software being codeveloped with claude/codex/gemini/you-name it.
Before, it was too costly to do sth like the Posture app: here, you would have to know Swift and apple apis to write such tool. Would you be C# (very good) programmer with free weekend, and an idea: no cookie for ya.
These days, due to "great-ai-unlock" your skills can be easily transferred and used to cross platforms boundary and code such useful app in a weekend or so.
Maybe this is a naive take, but I don't really think LLMs have done that much to change the actual situation around ability/outcomes. If you are actually a very good C# programmer, knowing Swift and searching some Apple documentation seems very reasonable.
It might help "unstick" you if you aren't super confident, but it doesn't seem to me like it's actually leveling up mediocre programmers to "very good" ones, in familiar or unfamiliar domains.
> I don't really think LLMs have done that much to change the actual situation around ability/outcomes
from my own experiences and many others I have seen on this site and elsewhere, I'm not sure how anyone could conclude this.
> it doesn't seem to me like it's actually leveling up mediocre programmers to "very good" ones
Oh well then if this is your metric then maybe your take is correct, but not relevant? From the top level comment I thought we were talking about the bar being lowered for building something thanks to AI and you don't need to become any better at being a programmer to do so.
I don't care how good of a programmer you are, if you don't know Apple stuff (Swift, Xcode, all the random iOS/Mac app BS) you aren't making an Apple app in a weekend. Learning things is easy but still takes time, and proficiency is only earned by trying and failing a number of times — unless you're an LLM, in which case you're already proficient in everything.
No I can confirm this. I am at least an average C# dev, with 16 years of experience.
I have built a very nicely responsive real-time syncing iOS app in what amounts to a weekend of time. (I only have an hour here and there, young kids) I had zero iOS/Swift development experience prior to it.
I can also confirm that this wouldn't have been built if it weren't for Claude Code. It's "just" an improved groceries app, that works especially well for my wife and me.
Without LLM's, and with just an hour here and there, I wouldn't have done the work to learn the intricacies of iOS and Swift dev, set up the app, and actually tweak and polish it so it works well -- just to scratch the itch of a bit better groceries handling.
"Help me develop a MacOS app that blurs my screen the closer my mouse is to the top of the monitor"
That was my PoC to see if there's APIs Claude could find that would make this easy to do. Once I proved that worked, I asked it to instead help me devise a way to adjust that blur based on my posture. It suggested the vision framework and measuring head height.
Just kept iterating, one step at a time. Any toil I experienced, I asked it to remove or automate.
This is going to sound very basic, but did you do it in a blank repo or did you use the cloned integration in Xcode, or a third thing I'm not thinking of?
I have had good success with using xcodegen and only a project.yml checked in. Claude can get tripped up on managing the xcode project xml.
However, before that, i set up a blank project in xcode, used the xcode github integration to create a new repo on github, set up one xcode cloud workflow and use it to push one build to testflight. That way, you get all the automatic config of app ids, profiles etc, and xcode cloud can not be enabled other way. Then tell claude to migrate to xcodegen and to run it in CI automatically.
I've started to develop iOS apps from scratch using only claude code web (no mac), by setting up a "Branch Build" workflow in xcode cloud, and a skill that teaches claude how to check builds and fetch logs.
Along with a workflow that pushes any merge on main to internal TestFlight, the dream of developing iPhone apps on the iPhone finally lives. I've tried most options for this over the years and they never stuck.
These are simple apps that build in 1-5 min on xcode cloud. For larger builds it probably won't work so well.
Not the OP, but I’ve had success starting with a blank app created by Xcode with the appropriate language/frameworks (ie something that will already run but does nothing). You then ask Claude to start from that point.
The only issue I’ve had is sometimes Xcode not ‘seeing’ new files that Claude has created along the way, and needing to add these manually into the Xcode project. (A Google around suggests this shouldn’t happen if you create the project in the right way, and yet it still sometimes does.)
I don't see how the Jevons paradox would apply here. Code being cheaper and faster to produce obviously causes the demand for apps such as this one to grow. That's just supply and demand.
An example of where I think the paradox would apply might be one where LLMs made software engineers more efficient yet the demand for SWEs would grow.
It's because they're misusing the term. Jevons' paradox doesn't apply to the simple idea that "cheaper code leads to more demand for code", that's just the concept of price curves.
Instead, Jevons' paradox refers to a counterintuitive rebound effect: AI tools make engineers more productive, which you'd expect to reduce the marginal demand for additional engineers (since the same output requires fewer people). In reality, this efficiency lowers the effective cost of software development, sparking even greater overall demand for new features and projects, which ultimately increases total spending on engineering talent.
Can you expand with more technical explanation how are those two points implemented:
- You can bring your shell environments / init scripts / aliases with you in a noninvasive way. I.e. you don't have to modify the remote system dotfiles, when you connect through xpipe it will set up any scripts you want to have available automatically
- You can link up your password manager with your SSH client and other connection methods that require passwords
Feel free to write here or refer to any url you recommend.
- When XPipe will open a terminal connection and you have specified custom shell environments / init scripts for a certain system, it will first automatically create a temporary init script on the target system in the background, which will be run as the login script only for that terminal launch from XPipe. That way it's noninvasive and doesn't change any existing configuration on the system
- XPipe acts as an askpass program for SSH, meaning that it can listen to any password requests made from the ssh client, forward that your password manager, and reply with the password that the password manager returned. If you password manager supports the SSH-agent, XPipe can also use it to supply keys for ssh as well.
> Taking VC cash is very often a game of deciding whether you want to gamble it all on faster growth or take less risk for less cash, but with the additional caveat that the investors you take on often will cheer for the "gamble it all" option as they have many parallel bets while you as the founder has one.
This shall be printed in block letters in a red frame ahead of most Paul Graham essays about milk, honey and richies in startup land.
He and VCs push theirs agenda because he has hundreds of bets, while founder has one.
They play different game and are quite quiet about it.
Sure, it ought to be clearer, but apart from maybe the first time, I still would have taken VC cash because it allowed us to do things we otherwise wouldn't have been able to try, and it was a fun ride. Even without any large exits, if you negotiate then you can still come out very well.
But, yes, people ought to go into it understanding which game they're playing, and understanding that your odds are different. Not least because it might make a difference in how you judge advice from your investors.
(There's also only one decision I regret us making due to investors being too willing to take risks; in retrospect I was firmly proven right but whether the board vote going the other way would have made a financial difference in the long run I can't say)
I don't have necessary knowledge to explain this, yet while using gpt4 to help me parse the abstract, gpt4 without missing a heartbeat, changed it to "Insolation refers to the amount of stellar energy a planet receives on its surface. The value "0.67s" indicates that TOI-715 b receives 67% of the solar energy Earth receives from the Sun. "
Friend of mine has 3 yrs old. The "dolphin" is in constant use by the child.
"What is he doing now?"
" Let's check what dolphin is playing with today".
"What does it say"
"Does he miss me?"
"Let's play with him".
It quickly became pal of the child.
Friend told that is one in top 5 toys of the child now :)
They're currently sending, massive unsolicited e-mail campaign to all (sic!) stackoverflow users. Message they're sending below. Please find 6 places where they try to address AI directly and indirectly :)
Stack Overflow is investing heavily in enhancing the developer experience across our products, using AI and other technology, to get people to solutions faster.
As part of that initiative, we’ve launched Stack Overflow Labs.
Here is where we’ll share our experiments, demos, insights, and news - across all Stack Overflow products. We plan to continually add to this site as we experiment and release new solutions.
You can sign up to get previews and early access to features that will be available on stackoverflow.com.
Our guiding principles for Stack Overflow Labs
Find new ways to give technologists more time to create amazing things.
Accuracy is fundamental. That comes from attributed, peer-reviewed sources that provide transparency.
The coding field should be accessible to all, including beginners to advanced users.
Humans should always be included in the application of any new technology.
Very interesting -- had not seen that. Indeed, I think they could do with a bit of a makeover. Their ad platform is also terrible, way worse than Twitter's, so it is both good and bad that they're feeling a bit of a pinch I suppose.
more than that the platform is the more aggressive in the worst way possible, or your ask so specific about weird behavior that nobody responds or they say this already bean asking even if not(because some mods don't read what they ban), they block conversation with hundreds of votes, they practically insult the post writer for “not knowing”, i'm happy if they start changing the nefarious moderation scheme, im 100 % more likely of making the same question in reddit than in stackoverflow people are kind, because moderation encourage that, that would totally increase the use of their platform lots more than this.
I suspect that final(*) UI is much more similar to TUI: being kind of conversational (human <> AI). Current GUIs provided by your bank/etc are much less effective/useful for us, comparing to conversation way: 'show/do me sth which I just need'. Not to mention (lack of) walled garden effect, and attention grabbing not in the user interest (popups, self-promo, nagging). Also if taking into account age factor. Also that we do not have to learn, yet another GUI (teach a new bank to your mom ;). So at least 4 distinct and important advantages for TUI.
My bet: TUI/conversation win (*).
*) there will be some UI where graphical information density is important (air controller?) especially in time critical environments. yet even there I suspect it's more like conversation with dynamic image/report/graph generated on the go. Not the UI per se.
reply