The provided example is really bad and ignores why customer service is sometimes a good idea. I guess it's been so bad and corrupted by disingenuous marketing for so long that people have forgotten.
Suppose you need to buy some stuff for an upcoming project or vacation, but don't want to go down a research rabbit hole for the next hour(s) to cure your ignorance. Suppose you don't even want to have a conversation with the AI. You just want it to build a shopping cart. At most, hopefully, your effort is just pruning the cart before placing the order (if even that).
I'm not saying AI wouldn't be corrupted like human customer service. I'm saying that we're actually pretty close to this already on Amazon with their AI, but not all ecommerce can be or has to be Amazon.
This probably isn't that far off. That would keep the contact lenses inert and passive (no added side effects and no power needed).
The color change could also be subtle enough to require a sensor in smartglasses, but I don't think that's too bad. If the lenses ever get to the point where they're relaying multiple things, you're going to need a sensor anyway to demux those signals.
I like the concept, but it needs more interesting content. I was actually confused for a few rounds.
As soon as I realized it's just a game of trivia and "spot the AI image/video", my scores improved dramatically. It's like a switch flipped in my brain and I stopped overthinking these.
It seems like that's the opposite of what you intended?
> The future isn't a bunch of extremely personalized apps - the future is a single AI assistant doing all the work.
I suppose if you break your glasses, squirt real hard, and drop down about 30 IQ points, then sure.
We're extremely far from anyone, even those with the most interest and capability, giving a practical demo of this future you're suggesting.
What we all see irrefutably happening is some new people are just barely able to do slightly more than they used to. That's the impact we'd expect from a better search engine and a better "I'm feeling lucky" button which, of course, is what this era of AI is.
> We're extremely far from anyone, even those with the most interest and capability, giving a practical demo of this future you're suggesting.
Yes, absolutely. This is a very far future. But that future is (maybe, possibly, hopefully) coming, unlike this other future which is absolutely never coming.
Having AI "do the task directly" sounds just as miserable as anything else people keep insisting is the future. We can't rely on probabilistic methods. We will still need humans in the loop to pin down the deterministic parts and also the parts we intended (often the same, but not always).
Humanity has dreamed of being able to control computers by having actual conversations for the last 80 years or so based on nearly all sci-fi movies ever released, and that dream is finally becoming reality. And it's not a coincidence - talking is the most natural, the most human way to interact with a computer, and the only reason we haven't done that successfully before was technical limitations. By which I mean, if not for technical limitations, we'd have been talking to our computers a long freaking time ago. Wait, how old is Siri now?
If AI keeps getting better, then it is inevitable that voice conversations will become the dominant way in which mostbpeople use most computers for most tasks most of the time. It's just part of human nature and there's no way around it. The only way this doesn't happen is if AI never becomes good enough to support it.
Personally, I'm not a fan of voice input. But I want AI to get better. And the future where voice conversations work well enough to be used as the main HCI method is inevitably also the future where voice conversations are used as the main HCI method by most people. I'm hopeful for technological progress, that's all. It's just that you cannot have this progress but not have people take advantage of it in this exact way.
Compare it to the future where most people vibe code their own apps, which has zero chance of happening no matter how good AI gets.
There's nothing to be excited for. Even if AI works as well as people say (and to be clear: it very much doesn't), that future sucks ass. No more fun making things, no fun solving problems, just hand it off to the machine that does things for you. That's an awful future where every shred of joy is gone from computing.
> It's amazing for people who couldn't build anything before, but now can.
(Raises hand.) I'm doing things with my online law-school course materials, in just a few minutes using Claude, that I never even considered doing before because I didn't want to take the time to improve my rudimentary JavaScript- and CSS skills. Instead of just a fairly-simple, single-page HTML document, Claude is helping me turn the materials into something genuinely useful for both my students and practitioners.
Yes. I have a really hard time getting past the sheer scale of enablement for normal people, and we're stacking it up against, what, the joy professional developers get out of hand-cutting dovetail keys? And then like a whole cinematic universe about how if all the joinery isn't hand-cut, everything's going to collapse, which, like, obviously no.
One of my favorite journalists is Jerusalem Demsas, who just on a podcast mentioned --- in passing --- that she'd vibe-coded the photo editor they were using for her publication. That's a bananas statement! And we're all just, shrug, or worse: "that's slop!"
Don't get me wrong, I think we'll print money hats off this sentiment. By all means, do whatever you can to leave the lane we're building in as open and stigmatized as possible!
If I tell you to build me a house and you do so, I have not built the house.
I can give you requirements, give you feedback during the process, and otherwise contribute to the design, but at the end of the day I did not build the house.
I have no idea what this analogy is meant to communicate. If you're trying to suggest that software construction is only intentional or attributable if you write source code by hand, I'll just come back and say you haven't legitimately build anything unless you hex-edited it in machine code.
It's meant to communicate that building is something that requires effort on the part of the builder.
I don't write assembly, but I still had to learn how to code. I had to practice and put in the effort to develop it as a skill. Then, when I write something, I have to put in the effort to do it.
Of course, building things with AI generally takes varying levels of domain knowledge and guiding for now, but if we're talking about ordinary users making their own software, the implication is that in some cases existing skill won't be necessary, if not now then eventually.
At that point it would be truly effortless, and I don't think that you can rightfully say you built something if it required zero effort on your part.
It is not good to make things ordinary people use hard just for the sake of making it hard, or even in the pursuit of a perceived quality threshold if that threshold is beyond what the users will perceive. The cart is extremely dragging the horse in our field.
I think that it should not need to be mutually exclusive. You can make it you can enter the programs yourself (if you prefer to do for whatever reason, including, it does not work well (like you mention), or because of Dijkstra objection or other objections to the use of AI for programming the computer or AI in general), but that AI can also be possible.
It sucks that most of those people are going to be entirely dependent on a proprietary service to build things for them and they will never actually bother learning or improving their skills, even though the tools to do so have never been more freely and widely available.
It also sucks that so many people in tech think that the widespread loss of education, knowledge and freedom is a good thing.
I do not think it's a good thing for normal people to have to learn programming languages to built programs to solve their problems. To me this is like how the HAM radio people used to be required to learn Morse code.
I get that it might suck for people like us, who took the time to learn those languages! Oh well.
>I do not think it's a good thing for normal people to have to learn programming languages to built programs to solve their problems. To me this is like how the HAM radio people used to be required to learn Morse code.
No one is saying that anyone has to, but being able to is the whole thesis of the hacker ethos. Knowing how to do things yourself versus being a consumer dependent on corporations.
And children are learning how to program nowadays... although that won't be the case for long. My nephew is taking programming classes in school and making games in Roblox. But soon the only thing they'll teach is how to prompt Claude. We were almost at a point where programming could become general knowledge and that might have enabled widespread freedom and control over the evils of proprietary software and commercialism. Now we're burning it all down and a depressing number of people like yourself on this erstwhile forum of programmers and hackers are actually dancing on the ashes.
Using a service to generate software for you is not "building programs to solve your problems." You aren't building anything, and you certainly aren't learning anything that would give you any real control over it or let you exercise freedom relative to it. AI is just proprietary software and data theft with more steps and a lot more fascism.
It doesn't just suck for us, it sucks for everyone.
Sure, lots of things are more important than "the hacker ethos". Like critical thinking and independent thought, self-reliance, the joy of actually creating something yourself (which AI is a hollow, artificial substitute for).
Why shouldn't one lament sacrificing individuality and creativity, and increasing our reliance on corporations, all for the sake of convenience?
I think you just wrote "lots of things are more important than the hacker ethos, like [axiomatic rederivation of the hacker ethos]". That's not a persuasive argument.
I think it's just easy to dismiss "the hacker ethos" without considering the qualities it actually consists of. Maybe you'd disagree, but I think those qualities are very important and worth protecting.
I'm not saying it's not important, just that you can't reasonably expect to orient all of society around it. And that's what we're talking about when we talk about how computing is going to work for ordinary people.
I'm not expecting to orient all of society around it, but I do believe that it's harmful to remove or replace it where it does exist.
Ease and convenience are not worth the cost of giving up bits and pieces of our humanity here and there until there's nothing left; Pre-AI computing has already taken enough of it.
When you suggest that ordinary people should not use personal applications that they've built with AI because it robs them of the hacker spirit, that's what you're doing: orienting all of society around your aesthetic preference.
>We were almost at a point where programming could become general knowledge
Lol. Not only was this not true but we weren't even close. Genuinely bizarre that you could think this.
>enabled widespread freedom and control over the evils of proprietary software and commercialism.
Ironically, the only reality where this is remotely feasible is one where frontier llms can be run locally on phone like hardware and it becomes popular to do so.
I have never been able to understand this perspective. It's come up so often that it almost feels like a pro-AI propaganda strawman in the style of the "virgin vs chad" meme.
You can and should still write most of the code yourself and use AI to assist when you get stuck. Apart from saving yourself some hours because you no longer hit dead ends on google, I don't understand how that's meaningfully different from using a search engine and finding solutions on StackOverflow and GitHub. I don't even understand how people think this traditional workflow I'm suggesting is any slower than reviewing LLM output either. It takes the same cognitive load and the same time in the end. The only people who believe they can go faster and reduce cognitive load aren't just inexperienced, but also seem to have ADHD or something. Like they just wanna bask in the vibes of the machine-generated text scrolling by.
If your goal is to make something you're going to live with and maintain long term, or is more generally the foundation of a bigger idea, you can't ignore any part of the code or delegate it away. It's still writing that you're bound by like any other document.
> I have never been able to understand this perspective. It's come up so often that it almost feels like a pro-AI propaganda strawman in the style of the "virgin vs chad" meme.
The "strawman" comes from the businesses promoting the frontier LLMs and many of the best-known influencers in the space, especially on Xitter.
Are you telling us the only reason why making things was fun is because it made you "special"? And now that anyone can do it it isn't worth it for you anymore?
For me, I made things because I liked the process of making things, it was never really about the result. Much like solving crossword puzzles is about the process itself, not about getting the answer.
You are completely right. I am not entitled to anything. But before I was paid to have fun, I spent years trying to get better at it and then suddenly it completely lost its value. From fun of solving crossword puzzles to the dread of validating if crossword puzzles bot solved crossword puzzle correctly, with worse pay, less job security or opportunities.
I am not entitled for things to continue as they were, but I can still feel sad about it, you know.
I feel like the future is bright precisely because AI sucks so bad while also lowering the bar.
It made people not take software and software engineers for granted. Public perception of software has also finally matured. Boomers and tech CEOs fell into a tarpit that harshly exposes their stupidity while laypeople now feel like they can change the system.
This is all exciting in the best ways. My usage of AI at work and for personal projects goes as far as whatever the AI summary is on google. That's more than enough for me to get enough of a productivity boost on par with those who embarrassingly thrust themselves balls deep and refuse to pull out. Not everyone has to push the "I'm feeling lucky" button to get the same work done at the same pace.
> Throughout Excel's 40-year history, you've only been able to put one value per cell. In this announcement, we're excited to share how that's changing with the release of lists, arrays in cells, and nested arrays, initially to Microsoft Excel for Windows and Mac Beta Channels.
This seems like something I'd expect to already exist in Excel, but the way it's being presented makes it sound like they want to murder Excel.
Would anyone be shocked to find out that I've been smuggling JSON in spreadsheets for a long long time and regret nothing?
So then you optimize your workflow, but at what cost?
I find it much more painful to put in any amount of time into something that isn't what I intended. Of all the places to insist on efficiency, this is probably the most unreasonable.
> the offline option exists the way the wheelchair ramp exists at certain train stations: installed after the fact, satisfying a regulation, pitched at an angle no wheelchair on earth can climb. We are all expected to pretend grandma can make it up, and to act only mildly surprised when we find her at the bottom again.
It's hyperbole like this that breaks the illusion for the post. I'm not an editor, but if you're trying to make a valid point you need one man. Stinkeroo.
I'm not going to play this dissection game only to later be "checkmated" by a bunch of nerds rambling about and dogpiling onto nothing who can't see the forest for the trees. It's also replies like yours that break the illusion HN isn't full of bots.
If you don't think this entire post is hyperbole, you can at least see that it's yet another blogspam ad for MiSTer, right?
It's interesting about MiSTer. It was wedged into the article so awkwardly and suddenly that it felt like a definite advert, but it mostly said it was shit and only get it if you like frustratingly broken systems. I still think it was a reverse psychology form of an ad
This is especially true on a CRT. People often forget how "good enough" the PS2 graphics were, and how big of a deal that was.
Even the prior two games had an extremely tasteful use of textures and geometry that just felt right and realistic enough to not break immersion despite the hardware limitations. This era of gaming rightfully and correctly recognized that any form of "realism" is ultimately an impression rather than an objective truth.
Gran Turismo 3 was where I first started experiencing the "uncanny valley" of graphics. The game looked and felt incredible... so incredible that the lack of damage felt like an immersion-breaker in a way I hadn't experienced before.
> People often forget how "good enough" the PS2 graphics were, and how big of a deal that was.
I remember going to an electronics store with my friend. I couldn't figure out why they had a broadcast football game playing on a 15 inch LCD display up front. I assumed it was a game but then watched it for a few cuts and was so certain it was live footage...
Suppose you need to buy some stuff for an upcoming project or vacation, but don't want to go down a research rabbit hole for the next hour(s) to cure your ignorance. Suppose you don't even want to have a conversation with the AI. You just want it to build a shopping cart. At most, hopefully, your effort is just pruning the cart before placing the order (if even that).
I'm not saying AI wouldn't be corrupted like human customer service. I'm saying that we're actually pretty close to this already on Amazon with their AI, but not all ecommerce can be or has to be Amazon.
reply