No clue if the market will go for that but it would meet the issue head on. “Companies will provide server binaries” on the other hand feels like pure fantasy.

Overall I’m glad folks are trying to do something about this.

[0] - https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/ae4acc#...

As always in product the user's frustration is real and important but their ideas for a fix are almost never the best choice for the product, the company, or most users.

What you pay attention to grows. And company's pay attention to those things that move the needle on revenue. For many successful platforms UX doesn't move the needle much anymore (if it ever did). LinkedIn has effectively won their space and a clunky UI isn't going to show up in the numbers.

LinkedIn might have amazing designers on staff, but if leadership isn't prioritizing updates and fixes it won't happen. And leadership won't prioritize it until the problem shows up in the numbers.

> the idea is perhaps that users vibe-code their own distinct UX with everything valuable to them

I do find this interesting. I work on a complex business operations and reporting platform and every facility has their own lil quirks. More control in their hands would let them smooth out their workflows while still relying on the foundational work our platform does.

So true. People are going to be sooo mad when they find out we all have these Build Features For Free buttons and just don't press them.

If you're building for individual users you're not going to succeed. We all prioritize for broad success from the beginning.

I'm very into the idea of inversion of control and giving users this flexibility but I agree with GP that the SaaS company critique is misplaced. I hope you find enough success with 100X that you end up coming to the same conclusion.

I'll also add that one of your video examples is essentially a Twitter spam generator; is that the kind of feature you think SaaS companies should be prioritizing?

I still struggle with finding the best approach each time; I'd love more discussion of this stuff.

If LLMs are to be valuable in novel areas then the LLM needs to be able to spot these issues and ask clarifying questions or otherwise provide the appropriate corrective to the user's mental model.

LLMs AFAIK cannot do this for novel areas of interest. (ie if it's some domain where there's a ton of "10 things people usually miss about X" blog posts they'll be able to regurgitate that info, but are not likely to synthesize novel areas of ambiguity).

> while it’s true that textile experts did suffer from the advent of mechanical weaving, their loss was far outweighed by the gains the rest of the human race received from being able to afford more than two shirts over the average lifespan

I hope the author has enough self awareness to recognize that "this is good for the long term of humanity" is cold comfort when you're begging on the street or the government has murdered you, and that he's closer to being part of the begging class than the "long term of humanity" class (by temporal logistics if not also by economic reality).