[mjr00]

> Some have expressed the opinion in this forum that the future of software lies in programs that are created and adapted at runtime, using genAI.

Good luck with that. Users will flood you with complaints if a button moves 5px to the left after a design update. A program that is generated at runtime, with not just a variable UI but also UX and workflows, would get you death threats.

[hilariously]

I think many software adjacent folks are super excited because they can now have the personalized toothbrush they keep asking people to make for them.

The problem is that outside of that most people want boring and regular interfaces so they can get in and solve the problem and get out - they don't want to "love" it or care if its "sexy" they want it to work and get out of the way.

LLMs transmogrifying your software at ever request assumes people are software architects and creators who love the computer interface, and that just doesn't describe the bulk of the population.

Most people using computers use the to consume things or utilize access to things, not for their own sake, and they certainly don't think "what if I just had code to do x..." unless x is make them a lot of money.

[munk-a]

A program that is generated at runtime is fine (we have interpreted languages and often compile on demand) - the issue is with the non-deterministic nature of the output.

I think the core issue is that non-deterministic output is great for a chatbot experience where you want unpredictable randomness so it feels less like talking to the mirror - but when it comes to coding I think we're pretty fundamentally misaligned in sticking to that non-deterministic approach so firmly.