> Users get personalized interfaces without custom code.

Personalized interfaces are bad. I don't want to configure anything, and I don't want anything automatically configured on my behalf. I want it to just work; that kind of design takes effort & there's no way around it.

Your UI should be clear and predictable. A chatbot should not be moving around the buttons. If I'm going to compare notes with my friend on how to use your software, all the buttons need to be in the same place. People hate UI redesigns for a reason: Once they've learned how to use your software, they don't want to re-learn. A product that constantly redesigns itself at the whims of an inscrutable chatbot which thinks it knows what you want is the worst of all possible products.

ALSO: Egregiously written article. I assume it's made by an LLM.

I think you are right in the 'current paradigm' of what software is at the moment, where users are using a fixed set of functionality in the way that the developer intended, but there is a new breed of software where the functionality set can't be defined in an exhaustive way.

Take Claude Code - after I've described my requirement it gives me a customised UI that asks me to make choices specific to what I have asked it to build (usually a series of dropdown lists of 3-4 options). How would a static UI do that in a way that was as seamless?

The example used in the article is a bit more specific but fair - if you want to calculate the financial implications of a house purchase in the 'old software paradigm' you probably have to start by learning excel and building a spreadsheet (or using a dodgy online calculator someone else built, which doesn't match your use case). The spreadsheet the average user writes might be a little simplified - are we positive that they included stamp duty and got the compounding interest right? Wouldn't it be great if Excel could just give you a perfectly personalised calculator, with toggle switches, without users needing to learn =P(1+(k/m))^(mn) but while still clearly showing how everything is calculated? Maybe Excel doesn't need to be a tool which is scary - it can be something everyone can use to help make better decisions regardless of skill level.

So yes, if you think of software only doing what it has done in the past, Gen UI does not make sense. If you think of software doing things it has never done before we need to think of new interaction modes (because hopefully we can do something better than just a text chat interface?).

Yes and this is my biggest anxiety of future software and interfaces to come. You won't remember how you got there or did what because there are n permutations of getting there or doing that, except they're vaguely similar but not exactly the same thing. I too want predictable software (including UIs) that stays the same until I want to change/upgrade it myself as a user.

Yeah, additionally imagine supporting something like that: "Yeah, I cannot reproduce your issue because things on my end look different". A nightmare for sure.

> I want it to just work; that kind of design takes effort & there's no way around it

Nothing "just works" for everyone. You are a product of your environment, people say apple interfaces/OSX are intuitive, I found them utterly unusable until I was forced to spend a lot of time to learn them.

Depending on which software you grew up using, you either find it intuitive or don't. If you found someone that has never used technology, no modern UI would be intuitive.

Personally, I hate it when software that I have to use daily is not configurable (and ideally extensible via programming). It's basically designed for the lowest common denominator for some group of users that product/design groups have decided is "intuitive".

> People hate UI redesigns for a reason...

I do agree here, stop changing things for the sake of changing things. When I owned some internal tools, I would go out of my way to not break user workflows. Even minor things, like tab-order, which I think most people don't think about, I'd have browser automation tests to make sure they remained consistent.

Ehhhh....

Is an AI driven feed not UI changes? Those are incredibly successful but the buttons change every refresh.

UIs do not need to be static. The key is that there is a coherent pattern to what's changing.

When you look at it through that lens it doesn't seem so exotic.