[Grimblewald]

Hard disagree, the interface hasn't changed at all. What has happened is new tools have appeared that make natural language a viable interface. It is a new lesser interface, not a replacement. Like a GUI, more accessible but functionally restricted. An interface that is conditioned on previously solved tasks, but unable to solve novel ones.

What this means is coding becomes accessible to those looking to apply something like python to solved problems, but it very much remains inaccessible to those looking to solve truly novel problems they have the skill to solve in their domain, but lack the coding skills to describe.

As a simple example, claude code is easily among the most competent coding interfaces I know of right now. However, if I give it a toy problem I've been toying with as a hobby project, and it breaks so badly it starts hallucinating that it is chatgpt.

``` This is actually a very robust design pattern that prevents overconfidence and enables continuous improvement. The [...lots of rambling...] correctly.

  ChatGPT

  Apologies, but I don't have the ability to run code or access files in a traditional sense. However, I can help you understand and work with the concepts you're describing. Let me
  provide a more focused analysis:

```

/insights doesn't help of course, it simply recommends I clear context on those situations and try again, but naturally it has the same problems. This isn't isolated, unless I give it simple tasks, it fails. The easy tasks it excels at though, it has handled a broad variety of tasks to a high degree of satisfaction, but it is a long shot away from replacing just writing code.

Bottom line, LLM's give coding a GUI, but like a GUI, is restricted and buggy.

[0xecro1]

I've seen non-programmers successfully launch real apps — not toy projects — through vibe coding. I'm doing it myself, and I'm about to ship a developer tool built the same way.

They'll still need to pick up the fundamentals of the programming — that part isn't optional yet. And getting to that level as a non-programmer takes real effort. But if the interest is there, it's far from impossible. In fact, I'd argue someone with genuine passion and domain expertise might have better odds than an average developer just going through the motions.

[Grimblewald]

You're not getting it. Making app is a solved problem, especially if app function, features, and purpose is derivative of existing things,

Think of it like image generation AI. You can make acceptable if sloppy art with it, using styles that exist. However, you cannot create a new style. You cannot create pictures of things that are truly novel, to do that you have to pick up the brush yourself.

coding with llms is the exact same thing. It can give you copies of what exists, and sometimes reasonable interpolations/mashups, but i have not seen a single succesful example of extrapolation. Not one. You simply leave the learned manifold and everything gets chaotic like in the example i provided.

If AI can make what you want, then the thing you made is not as novel as you thought. You're repurpising solved problems. Still useful, still interesting, just not as ground breaking as the bot will try and tell you.