Has anyone done experiments with people who have absolutely no programming or programming-like experience and see what they can come up with?
From my experiences, any output I got from "AI", required already some level of experience/understanding of the tooling or language to get something useful out of it.
I agree. I wonder if the author has actually tried to build their baby tracking software using AI? I suspect AI would turn out to be a lot less useful than hoped.
But there is a middle ground between writing your own code and buying an off the shelf app - no/low code tools. For example, you can use our Easy Data Transform software to drag and drop a data processing pipeline to turn data from one form to another, no need to learn (or ask an AI about) Python+Pandas or R. But this only an option if there is a tool fits your needs, off course.
My 9 year old can sit down with the Replit Agent and make a simple game that entertains her for hours.
She couldn't make a business application and go out and start selling subscriptions, but there are whole categories of tools that can be created that are ultra simple CRUD apps that bring specific value to one person. Code quality and/or understanding how it works is irrelevant for that use case.
How much is this saying when just a couple decades ago a 9 year old could imagine that a broomstick was a sword and that they were fighting knights on the battlefield?
A child can fill in tons of gaps with their animation (see: Rugrats). We're talking about "is AI good enough to enable a 100% non-technical user able to create software on the fly without the non-technical user losing patience?" This is the discussion.
I work for someone who uses Apple Shortcuts and Zappier to bridge things together, that's working with common stuff like transcribing to One Note or Notta to Notion
edit: they would use ChatGPT to ask questions/find direction but wouldn't actually use the code if any was given but I think if you're using say WP where you can just dump in random code via a plugin, people would try that
I can see something like Shortcuts/Zappier or some visual things to work quite well for non-programmers. After all, we've had lots of businesses using rule engines and visual editors to "program" their business logic for a long time.
I just don't see "AI" spitting out code and people just putting it somewhere and it all working just fine, without having to learn some of the basics first.
Maybe some highly integrated system could work, that does the doing for you, and users don't _have_ to deal with code and the tooling to run it. But those systems will again be quite limited, so questionable how "personal" it gets.
One thing I've used "AI" for multiple times already with little to no modification, is to write some one-off script to automate some basic repetitive task (e.g. batch converting something with ffmpeg). Can you call this personal software?
There still needs to be more user-friendly interfaces built on top of the raw AI materials. For many of my non-tech friends, the open text input for ChatGPT is intimidating. Yes, it can do everything, but they don't know the right questions to ask. We'll need better products that make app building more "consumer" feeling, versus understanding the intricacies of prompting.
> Creating software is starting to resemble cooking. Your home-cooked software is exactly what you need, without extra fuss or cost. And each time you build something personal, you gain a deeper appreciation for the craft of creating software.
I think this is true, but it also actually requires you to want to make your own software. In cooking, most people are aware that they're physically capable of making a roast chicken with gravy and mashed potatoes.
Yet takeaway/delivery is thriving. It's not that the ability to cook is scarce, but the desire to do it. I think the same is (now) true with building software.
I could probably be a pretty damn good cook, perhaps even a sous chef. But there is so so much I want to do that is not cooking. Is it really so difficult for CEOs and devrels of AI companies to imagine that some people don't want to spend their time making software, even if it is accessible?
If we stick with the comparison to cooking, I think AI is not like a cookbook, but like an air fryer.
A cookbook lets you cook like Thomas Keller or Eric Ripert or whoever because you get their exact recipes, even when those recipes have 18 steps and take 7 hours.
An air fryer lets anyone make something acceptably tasty in 20 minutes and with zero technique.
Imo this is what AI is doing for software building. It lets almost anyone build something that accomplishes a job. But we don't have to expect it to have scalable architecture, beautiful UI or follow security best practices.
I think part of the problem is that most software engineers rightfully care about these things for their jobs. But maybe they don't matter if you're building "home-cooked software".
The same way you can read cookbooks from 3 michelin star chefs and wonder if anyone will ever follow the recipes in them (check out Marc Pierre White recipes for an example).
AI doesn't enable non programmer to make their own app. It made non tech managers wishfully believe they won't have to pay coders to spend days to write the code.
I feel like existing models and platforms still have a bit of work to do to make this easy for everyone, but overall I agree that this is the direction things are headed. I have very minimal programming experience, but I was able to put together a personal project manager that I'm actually using in my personal life and at work.
The thing that blew me away was that this took ~2 hours total time and I didn't touch the code at all - this was 100% done using Cursor. Similarly, I've been building other tools that I use at work and my team is starting to roll them into our standard workflows because they work well.
There are many instances where I struggle to get it to make what I want, but overall I've been really impressed by how much it has helped me and by how easy it has been to start building my own personal software.
I lean toward most people remaining generally apathetic. There are many DIY kits and guides for a great number of things that have done most of the hard work of designing, measuring, cutting, etc for you. My perception is that most people would still rather buy or use an already finished product.
Does the average person even use computers outside of desk workers at work now, anyway? Can you build and deploy an app with an iPhone/Android app?
I think that people should give the idea that the common man is a boiling vessel of ingenuity and wonder restrained only by not having to right tools (read: products) a rest. I know that there are cultural and socioeconomic incentives to believing this. So the idea persists, for now.
I just don’t buy the supposition that in ten years those incentives will still attract the common man.
I don't think most people know customizing software is even a thing. I think it just doesn't occur to people.
I once heard an anecdote that being a welder makes you look at metal objects differently than non-welders. What a non-welder sees as rigid and inflexible a welder sees as able to be changed.
I think the view of software for programmers vs. non-programmers is similar.
Having said that, just as most people don't see the benefit to being a welder, most people aren't going to suddenly see the benefit of being a programmer.
> I once heard an anecdote that being a welder makes you look at metal objects differently than non-welders. What a non-welder sees as rigid and inflexible a welder sees as able to be changed.
Was it this one?
“One of the unexpected things about watching the steel guys work is how the solidity of metal means nothing to them. Most people think of metal as something hard and inflexible, but welders don't. Which should be obvious in hindsight, I guess. But, for example, they have these saw-horses that are made of tube steel. And I can see how that came about: they needed some saw-horses; they had some steel. It took them 30 seconds to make them. And, an example with the stairs: the legs of the stairs' landing platform have big threaded bolts for feet, to fine-tune the height of the legs for levelling. And there are these steel tube sleeves that go around the legs, that drop down and cover the bolts. So when they were moving this platform in, they had to flip it over, and they didn't want the sleeves to fall off while they did this. Now to me, that job calls for duct tape. To them: they welded the sleeves in place, then de-welded them when they needed them to move again.”
Bad UX? Maybe a bad UI but the UX is fantastic. I prefer the keyboard magic I can do. Just look at MARSHA (For Marriott hotels), a terrible UI but major in the keyboard warriors that have been using it for two decades.
> We need more builders, not fewer. Because building fosters understanding. And as more people start making personal software, the bar for what counts as “great software” will inevitably rise.
Love this take. After over a decade of software development I've gained much more appreciation for well-built/useful products.
Readit News
From my experiences, any output I got from "AI", required already some level of experience/understanding of the tooling or language to get something useful out of it.
But there is a middle ground between writing your own code and buying an off the shelf app - no/low code tools. For example, you can use our Easy Data Transform software to drag and drop a data processing pipeline to turn data from one form to another, no need to learn (or ask an AI about) Python+Pandas or R. But this only an option if there is a tool fits your needs, off course.
She couldn't make a business application and go out and start selling subscriptions, but there are whole categories of tools that can be created that are ultra simple CRUD apps that bring specific value to one person. Code quality and/or understanding how it works is irrelevant for that use case.
Until you encounter an error that needs debugging, or you want to extend their functionality.
A child can fill in tons of gaps with their animation (see: Rugrats). We're talking about "is AI good enough to enable a 100% non-technical user able to create software on the fly without the non-technical user losing patience?" This is the discussion.
edit: they would use ChatGPT to ask questions/find direction but wouldn't actually use the code if any was given but I think if you're using say WP where you can just dump in random code via a plugin, people would try that
I just don't see "AI" spitting out code and people just putting it somewhere and it all working just fine, without having to learn some of the basics first.
Maybe some highly integrated system could work, that does the doing for you, and users don't _have_ to deal with code and the tooling to run it. But those systems will again be quite limited, so questionable how "personal" it gets.
One thing I've used "AI" for multiple times already with little to no modification, is to write some one-off script to automate some basic repetitive task (e.g. batch converting something with ffmpeg). Can you call this personal software?
> I pasted the code you gave me into my Wordpress and now when I refresh the page it’s just white. Why?
I think this is true, but it also actually requires you to want to make your own software. In cooking, most people are aware that they're physically capable of making a roast chicken with gravy and mashed potatoes.
Yet takeaway/delivery is thriving. It's not that the ability to cook is scarce, but the desire to do it. I think the same is (now) true with building software.
A cookbook lets you cook like Thomas Keller or Eric Ripert or whoever because you get their exact recipes, even when those recipes have 18 steps and take 7 hours.
An air fryer lets anyone make something acceptably tasty in 20 minutes and with zero technique.
Imo this is what AI is doing for software building. It lets almost anyone build something that accomplishes a job. But we don't have to expect it to have scalable architecture, beautiful UI or follow security best practices.
I think part of the problem is that most software engineers rightfully care about these things for their jobs. But maybe they don't matter if you're building "home-cooked software".
The same way you can read cookbooks from 3 michelin star chefs and wonder if anyone will ever follow the recipes in them (check out Marc Pierre White recipes for an example).
I posted about it recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=cgarduno1garduno.gith...
Here's the repo: https://github.com/cgarduno1garduno/SPOT
The thing that blew me away was that this took ~2 hours total time and I didn't touch the code at all - this was 100% done using Cursor. Similarly, I've been building other tools that I use at work and my team is starting to roll them into our standard workflows because they work well.
There are many instances where I struggle to get it to make what I want, but overall I've been really impressed by how much it has helped me and by how easy it has been to start building my own personal software.
Does the average person even use computers outside of desk workers at work now, anyway? Can you build and deploy an app with an iPhone/Android app?
I just don’t buy the supposition that in ten years those incentives will still attract the common man.
I once heard an anecdote that being a welder makes you look at metal objects differently than non-welders. What a non-welder sees as rigid and inflexible a welder sees as able to be changed.
I think the view of software for programmers vs. non-programmers is similar.
Having said that, just as most people don't see the benefit to being a welder, most people aren't going to suddenly see the benefit of being a programmer.
Was it this one?
“One of the unexpected things about watching the steel guys work is how the solidity of metal means nothing to them. Most people think of metal as something hard and inflexible, but welders don't. Which should be obvious in hindsight, I guess. But, for example, they have these saw-horses that are made of tube steel. And I can see how that came about: they needed some saw-horses; they had some steel. It took them 30 seconds to make them. And, an example with the stairs: the legs of the stairs' landing platform have big threaded bolts for feet, to fine-tune the height of the legs for levelling. And there are these steel tube sleeves that go around the legs, that drop down and cover the bolts. So when they were moving this platform in, they had to flip it over, and they didn't want the sleeves to fall off while they did this. Now to me, that job calls for duct tape. To them: they welded the sleeves in place, then de-welded them when they needed them to move again.”
— <https://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/log/2001/04/13.html>
Love this take. After over a decade of software development I've gained much more appreciation for well-built/useful products.