| ▲ | threethirtytwo 3 days ago |
| I think the opposite. It will make all software matter less. If trendlines continue... It will be faster for AI to vibe code said software to your customized specifications than to sign up for a SaaS and learn it. "Claude, create a project management tool that simplifies jira, customize it to my workflow." So a lot of apps will actually become closed source personalized builds. |
|
| ▲ | coffeefirst 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| This isn’t going to happen. I can already build a ticket tracker in a weekend. I’ve been on many teams that used Jira, nobody loves Jira, none of us ever bothered to DIY something good enough. Why? Because it’s a massive distraction. It’s really fun to build all these side apps, but then you have to maintain them. I’m guessing a lot of vibeware will be abandoned rather than maintained. |
| |
| ▲ | hrmtst93837 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Teams skip DIY trackers because maintenance is expensive now if agents cut that cost a lot more teams will tolerate the distraction. | |
| ▲ | threethirtytwo 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Who said you’re building it? You’re telling your AI to build it while you go play golf or something. | | |
| ▲ | hparadiz 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The hard part has always been shipping, buttoning things up, doing the design. Not the idea per say. And then if any of it is successful and starts making money guess who you're gonna call to maintain it? | | |
| ▲ | threethirtytwo 2 days ago | parent [-] | | These are local systems. Think of it like vibe coding your personal GUI or CLI. Each programmer uses their own custom build. There's no maintenance except only for themselves. You typically use an off the shelf project management software because it's too time consuming to build one catered to your own preferences. But with AI, it just does it for you. I'm talking about custom one off personal solutions readily done because of AI executing on it for you. |
| |
| ▲ | lelanthran 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Who said you’re building it? You’re telling your AI to build it while you go play golf or something. If AI can build your software for you, you aren't going to be playing golf, you're going to be standing in line in the soup kitchen. | |
| ▲ | roncesvalles 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's not how anything works. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | SchemaLoad 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And then you get a new hire who already knows the common SaaS products but has to re learn your vibe coded version no one else uses where no information exists online. There is a reason why large proprietary products remain prevalent even when cheaper better alternatives exist. Being "industry standard" matters more than being the best. |
| |
| ▲ | threethirtytwo 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The new hire will just vibe code a new solution that translates your solution into something he prefers. Every new hire will have his own. | | |
| ▲ | SchemaLoad 3 days ago | parent [-] | | This will all end well I'm sure | | |
| ▲ | threethirtytwo 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It will. By translation I mean like a front end client that translates the api into a user interface they prefer. They will build something localized to their own workflow. If it doesn't end well it's localized to them only. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ares623 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | As the kids say: "let them cook" |
|
|
| ▲ | zadikian 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| But then all your local stuff is based on open-source software, unlike the SaaS which is probably not all the way open. I've always preferred my stack to be on the thinner, more vanilla, less prebuilt side than others around me, and seems like LLMs are reinforcing that approach now. |
|
| ▲ | uduni 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There's too much value in familiar UX. "Don't make the user think" is the golden rule these days. People used to have mental bandwidth for learning new interfaces... But now people expect uniformity |
| |
| ▲ | ahartmetz 3 days ago | parent [-] | | They expect low complexity. Uniformity has greatly declined in the last 30 years or so. How do you even tell what is or isn't clickable, ffs? |
|
|
| ▲ | not_paid_by_yt 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| if the trendlines continue on atmospheric greenhouse gases we will all be dead from climate change so I really do hope the world is a little bit more complicated than trendlines just extrapolating out. Interestingly enough that might actually be bad for OpenAI since it will be difficult to sell their product if their customers are dying from heat stroke. |
| |
| ▲ | threethirtytwo 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You hope. But you need to think realistically. Not hopefully. Trendlines will continue. Even the one for greenhouse gases. That is the most realistic scenario. In fact the trendline for greenhouse gases is even stronger than AI. I am far more confident about greenhouse gases continuing to rise than I am for AI. Telling me how another trendline points to a shitty reality doesn't change the fact that the shitty reality is still reality. It's a common mistake in debate. I haven't stated whether I hope for one reality or the other. I'm simply stating the most probable future. You haven't even disagreed with me. | | |
| ▲ | not_paid_by_yt 2 days ago | parent [-] | | we are probably not going to keep pumping CO2 out at the rate of the worst case scenario of business because believe it or not companies are aware there is little profit to be made from dead consumers. The realistic scenarios are still pretty bad but less so. Just assuming LLMs will scale to the point of being more useful as all these companies are banking on is not unfounded but it's also just an educated guess because of their own optimistic prediction they will be able to bring about a new fascist world they are in charge of before they run out of money. It's very likely we are all screwed but it's also very likely LLMs will not scale up fast enough so they can replace the majority of human labor. | | |
| ▲ | threethirtytwo 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Look up the tragedy of the commons. It’s revelatory. If companies know it’s suicide why haven’t they stopped yesterday? If they knew yesterday and could’ve stopped yesterday then it’s clear that there’s no precedence indicating they will stop in the future. The question is why? Tragedy of the commons. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | nine_k 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| When you want reliable, battle-tested software, you will notice the difference. |
| |
|
| ▲ | Joel_Mckay 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Due to copyright laws and piracy bleed-through, one can't safely license "AI" output under some other use-case without the risk of getting sued or DMCA strikes. You can't make it GPL, or closed source... because it is not legally yours even if you paid someone for tokens. Like all code-generators that came before, the current LLM will end up a niche product after the hype-cycle ends. "AI" only works if the models are fed other peoples real works, and the web is already >52% nonsense now. They add the Claude-contributor/flag to Git projects, so the scrapers don't consume as much of its own slop. ymmv =3 |
