←back to thread

858 points cryptophreak | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
taeric ◴[] No.42934898[source]
I'm growing to the idea that chat is a bad UI pattern, period. It is a great record of correspondence, I think. But it is a terrible UI for doing anything.

In large, I assert this is because the best way to do something is to do that thing. There can be correspondence around the thing, but the artifacts that you are building are separate things.

You could probably take this further and say that narrative is a terrible way to build things. It can be a great way to communicate them, but being a separate entity, it is not necessarily good at making any artifacts.

replies(17): >>42934997 #>>42935058 #>>42935095 #>>42935264 #>>42935288 #>>42935321 #>>42935532 #>>42935611 #>>42935699 #>>42935732 #>>42935789 #>>42935876 #>>42935938 #>>42936034 #>>42936062 #>>42936284 #>>42939864 #
t_mann ◴[] No.42935789[source]
Ok, but what is a good pattern to leverage AI tools for coding (assuming that they have some value there, which I think most people would agree with now)? I could see two distinct approaches:

- "App builders" that use some combination of drag&drop UI builders, and design docs for architecture, workflows,... and let the UI guess what needs to be built "under the hood" (a little bit in the spirit of where UML class diagrams were meant to take us). This would still require actual programming knowledge to evaluate and fix what the bot has built

- Formal requirement specification that is sufficiently rigorous to be tested against automatically. This might go some way towards removing the requirement to know how to code, but the technical challenge would simply shift to knowing the specification language

replies(4): >>42935904 #>>42935921 #>>42935971 #>>42938191 #
staplers ◴[] No.42935921[source]

  Ok, but what is a good pattern to leverage AI tools for coding?
Actual product stakeholders are not likely to spill their magic sauce and give free consultancy.
replies(2): >>42936035 #>>42937961 #
1. t_mann ◴[] No.42937961{3}[source]
That's no reason to not discuss potentially cool ideas, unless you think their input is so indispensable that any debate is futile without them.