[pilgrim0]

Having a design background, I agree completely. To explain why design matters in this case, we simply need to look at ergonomic factors: literally the “economy of work.” That’s why I pointed out the "end to end" claim as a lie because it’s impossible to assert such things without thorough testing of the applications and continued analysis of its effects on the whole supply chain. Most of those AI byproducts will likely be laughable in the coming decades, similarly to the recurring weird-form-factor boom surrounding whatever device is in vogue. Refer to the video linked in [1] for good examples of weird PC input devices from the 2000s. It takes considerable time for the most viable form-factors to be established, and once that’s achieved, then the designs of the vast majority of products within a category converge to the most ergonomic (and economic) one. What bothers me most is not the advent of novelty and experiments, but the overconfidence and overpromises surrounding what are merely untested product hypotheses for most of AI applications. The negligible marginal cost of producing derivative work in software, fueled by the high availability of accessible tooling and lack of rigorous design and scientific training, is to blame. Never mind the hype cycle, which is natural and expected. In times like these, it is when we most need pragmatic skepticism. I wonder if AI developers at all care to do the bare minimum due diligence required to launch their products. Seems to be a rare thing in SWE in general.

[1] https://youtu.be/Sbtgc6mi44M?si=X2e0DSlxZjC7_YOf