The real problem for Apple here: in the fairly near future, the model of pre-defined functionality of software will be obsolete. All apps will be vibe coded and customized. Individual apps will basically be silos that protect proprietary data sources that are difficult to collect. But they will be infinitely more configurable than they are today.

▲

WarmWash 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I suspect any minute the first software with integrated AI customization will launch. Geeks will hate it, but regular folks will love trading all those god damn endless settings and menus for a simple prompt bar.

In an almost ironic twist, GUI will revert back to a "CLI".

▲

WillAdams 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, I've been wondering what this might look like for a 3D printer slicer --- heck, I'd be glad to just have a series of sliders:

- aesthetic print quality

- dimensional accuracy

- strength

- ease of removing supports

- reliability of printing

which resolve to two values which estimate:

- print time

- volume of material used/consumed in supports

▲

wolvoleo 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah but not everyone has the same priorities within those sliders. For example strength is something that has many different types. Tensile strength, compression strength, shearing etc.

You use different infills to optimise for each type. This differs per model. An AI can surely help optimise it but it won't always know which one to prioritize, it requires knowing exactly what the printed model will be used for.

The same with aesthetics, usually you care about one specific side. And for ease of remove, are you willing to use support interface material? That makes a lot of difference.

	▲	_alternator_ 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think this comment actually makes the case for highly custom LLM modifications to software. If you have priorities, you express them to the model and let it figure out how to maximize the UI for your needs.

▲

_alternator_ 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The article basically said it did launch and then Apple blocked it.

I’m really curious why I’m getting downvoted here. I fundamentally think that software is about to become 1000x more customizable and it’s a problem for the existing app model.

If I’m wrong, I want to know why. The thread seems to have a bias against AI slop (totally understandable), but in my experience it can one shot simple and functional apps today, and the technology will likely be able to make much better apps in the near future.

▲

ToucanLoucan 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Is there an actual use-case for this fan-fiction-esque prediction of software that rewrites itself, or is this just promoting AI for the sake of promoting it only?

I get annoyed enough when software I use changes arbitrarily in ways that don't benefit me, I can't see LLM vibed software that changes itself based on what it thinks I need being an improvement at all. It just feels like it would be even more annoying.

▲

qubidt 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

My ideal software: buggy in ways you can't diagnose, for reasons you can't intuit, reproducible by literally no one in the world, and with no one to file a bug report to

▲

ToucanLoucan 13 hours ago | parent [-]

I love the idea of all software everywhere involving a die roll. Sounds like it'll be even more infuriating than most computing is right now.

	▲	degamad 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The BOFH is grinning in his cave.

▲

_alternator_ 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Simply put, yes, there are many use cases. Concrete example: Various timers with a better interface for the specific task I want to do (meditate, pomodoro, workout, etc) and no ads.

There’s no reason I really need those four different apps on my phone with a login and ads and tracking and 100 page terms of service.

Claude can write them for me today. It’s be even better if I just ask my phone for them and they pop up in a couple minutes.