5 ms·

The same points you made make me wonder if end users even want to modify or write a program. Even if it's possible, it's still a lot of work. I just don't see

The same points you made make me wonder if end users even want to modify or write a program. Even if it's possible, it's still a lot of work. I just don't see that as the typical consumer behavior.

hayley-patton 3y ago
The typical consumer isn't empowered to modify or write a program, so why would they entertain the idea?
philipswood 3y ago
Software often doesn't do the thing you want to do. It almost does it. Or it can just-just do it with contortions and a lot of repetitive toil on your side. I think writing little plugins and drivers to do the thing you want with an LLM is something that could be built into a lot of software. I don't think LLM can architect and build whole systems yet, but this niche is something that can be done.
- funcDropShadow 3y ago
  I am not sure that LLMs change much with regards to malleable software. A lot of software used to be somewhat malleable [1]. But that got removed, because it wasn't A/B testable or it wasn't the most easy implementation thinkable. Those two points are not changed by LLMs. Therefore, I doubt we will see a resurgence of malleable or at least configurable and scriptable software. Although, I would love to see it. Even those small features to adapt the application to your style of working instead of the other way around was extremely useful, imho. [1] There was a time, when it was considered a standard feature of a UI that you could change keyboard shortcuts and toolbars. MacOS and Mac OS X even had an API that end users could use to script across multiple applications. Amiga OS had something similar based on the language Rexx.
- michaelbrave 2y ago
  I've heard rumors of people that don't know how to code using LLMs to make blender addons in python, so this has already started I think.
- sublinear 2y ago
  > I think writing little plugins and drivers to do the thing you want with an LLM is something that could be built into a lot of software. Containing the craziness within low level drivers sounds like the perfect way to do several great things: fuzz the OS for vulnerabilities, finally relieve embedded engineers of what they clearly hate so much, save good tech from the scrap heap. So many wins!
surfingdino 3y ago
I have yet to meet a non-dev who wants to write or modify software themselves. Quite a few people still don't know that it's the software that makes appliances and devices do things and that it is written. They just don't know what software is so how would they know where to begin writing or modifying code?
- layer8 2y ago
  Start with macro recorders [0] that let users record and replay sequences of operations. This already exists in certain household appliances, or when making a music playlist. Give them the ability to view and modify the macro code. Add loops and variables etc., and some portion of people will create more complex macros, even if they are no software developers and have no interest in being one. It’s like writing a cooking recipe, people understand that. Apple iOS Shortcuts are also a form of that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_recorder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_recorder
- svieira 2y ago
  Yet I'm sure many of those non-devs have used Excel / LibreOffice / Lotus 1-2-3 to build something that is more-than-a-list-or-grid (anytime you put `=` into a cell, you are programming).
- itishappy 2y ago
  You've never met a non-dev who complains about the UX of Outlook, wants to adjust the contents of their Twitter/Facebook feed, or wishes to tweak the styles of their blog?
  - sublinear 2y ago
    Funny that you mention Outlook. A lot of Microsoft Office and adjacent programs have customizable UIs almost to the point of absurdity for decades yet it's uncommon to see anyone actually change the default layouts, adjust panes, or view modes. Maybe it's because everyone hates toolbars and ribbons, but why? Perhaps it's that the number of options is overwhelming. I am fairly certain most humans have seen code and their naive impression is that it's "cluttered"/"noisy". That impression is not because it's text or a ton of buttons staring back, but the cognitive overhead of actually understanding what you're looking at. LLMs can create or suggest things, but the user still has to comprehend something to continue interacting. That's where the interaction falls apart. What I can see is LLMs taking natural language input and curating catalogs of software or plugins. As it stands searching for software by feature is a terrible experience even for devs.
abecedarius 2y ago
Imagine if practically all the writing you encountered was in printed books and magazines. Talk about "personal writing", how it might change things, how to get there, would get back puzzled looks and "Even if it's possible, it's still a lot of work. I just don't see that as the typical consumer behavior." It is a lot of work to produce a book. Some relevant background: Bonnie Nardi, A Small Matter of Programming.

The same points you made make me wonder if end users even want to modify or write a program. Even if it's possible, it's still a lot of work. I just don't see that as the typical consumer behavior.

hayley-patton 3y ago

The typical consumer isn't empowered to modify or write a program, so why would they entertain the idea?

philipswood 3y ago

Software often doesn't do the thing you want to do. It almost does it. Or it can just-just do it with contortions and a lot of repetitive toil on your side. I think writing little plugins and drivers to do the thing you want with an LLM is something that could be built into a lot of software. I don't think LLM can architect and build whole systems yet, but this niche is something that can be done.

funcDropShadow 3y ago
I am not sure that LLMs change much with regards to malleable software. A lot of software used to be somewhat malleable [1]. But that got removed, because it wasn't A/B testable or it wasn't the most easy implementation thinkable. Those two points are not changed by LLMs. Therefore, I doubt we will see a resurgence of malleable or at least configurable and scriptable software. Although, I would love to see it. Even those small features to adapt the application to your style of working instead of the other way around was extremely useful, imho. [1] There was a time, when it was considered a standard feature of a UI that you could change keyboard shortcuts and toolbars. MacOS and Mac OS X even had an API that end users could use to script across multiple applications. Amiga OS had something similar based on the language Rexx.
michaelbrave 2y ago
I've heard rumors of people that don't know how to code using LLMs to make blender addons in python, so this has already started I think.
sublinear 2y ago
> I think writing little plugins and drivers to do the thing you want with an LLM is something that could be built into a lot of software. Containing the craziness within low level drivers sounds like the perfect way to do several great things: fuzz the OS for vulnerabilities, finally relieve embedded engineers of what they clearly hate so much, save good tech from the scrap heap. So many wins!

surfingdino 3y ago

I have yet to meet a non-dev who wants to write or modify software themselves. Quite a few people still don't know that it's the software that makes appliances and devices do things and that it is written. They just don't know what software is so how would they know where to begin writing or modifying code?

layer8 2y ago
Start with macro recorders [0] that let users record and replay sequences of operations. This already exists in certain household appliances, or when making a music playlist. Give them the ability to view and modify the macro code. Add loops and variables etc., and some portion of people will create more complex macros, even if they are no software developers and have no interest in being one. It’s like writing a cooking recipe, people understand that. Apple iOS Shortcuts are also a form of that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_recorder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_recorder
svieira 2y ago
Yet I'm sure many of those non-devs have used Excel / LibreOffice / Lotus 1-2-3 to build something that is more-than-a-list-or-grid (anytime you put `=` into a cell, you are programming).
itishappy 2y ago
You've never met a non-dev who complains about the UX of Outlook, wants to adjust the contents of their Twitter/Facebook feed, or wishes to tweak the styles of their blog?
- sublinear 2y ago
  Funny that you mention Outlook. A lot of Microsoft Office and adjacent programs have customizable UIs almost to the point of absurdity for decades yet it's uncommon to see anyone actually change the default layouts, adjust panes, or view modes. Maybe it's because everyone hates toolbars and ribbons, but why? Perhaps it's that the number of options is overwhelming. I am fairly certain most humans have seen code and their naive impression is that it's "cluttered"/"noisy". That impression is not because it's text or a ton of buttons staring back, but the cognitive overhead of actually understanding what you're looking at. LLMs can create or suggest things, but the user still has to comprehend something to continue interacting. That's where the interaction falls apart. What I can see is LLMs taking natural language input and curating catalogs of software or plugins. As it stands searching for software by feature is a terrible experience even for devs.

abecedarius 2y ago

Imagine if practically all the writing you encountered was in printed books and magazines. Talk about "personal writing", how it might change things, how to get there, would get back puzzled looks and "Even if it's possible, it's still a lot of work. I just don't see that as the typical consumer behavior." It is a lot of work to produce a book. Some relevant background: Bonnie Nardi, A Small Matter of Programming.