If you are a strong generalist with an entrepreneurial spirit, I think I would be aiming at getting hired by a small company where you can provide a buttload of value or looking at starting something where you have domain experience outside of software.

Then the stuff I mess with at home is 90s era CAN and it's basically all diagnostics, actually I think these particular cars don't do any control over the bus.

Just jump straight to business logic, scaffolding is done for you already.

I think in your question as well is an idea that apps from now on will be bespoke, small and unique entities but the truth is we are still going to be mostly solving already solved problems, and enterprise software will still require the same massive codebases as before.

The real win of frameworks is they keep your workers, AI or human, constrained to an existing known set of tools and patterns. That still matters in long term AI powered projects too. That and they provide battle hardened collection of solutions that cover lots of edge cases you would never think to put in your prompts.

As with much from this thread of cyberpunk writing, the cities and world are the most important characters, and the storyline is just an excuse to wander through their streets.

The same issues are still happening in frontier models. Especially in long contexts or in the edges of the models training data.

I think as well if you look closer, many cyberpunk worlds imply AI through robots, computers with personality etc.

I hate that I understand your last point by the way ha.

It will be a huge, huge breath of fresh air. I know I for one have not been building in VR because it has felt quite vendor locked with regards to hardware and stores. Same reason I don't do software for mobile.

That said these are large language models, you are guiding the output through vector space with your input, and so you really do have to leverage language to get the results you want. You don't have to believe it has emotions or feels anything for that to still be true.

There have been numerous times where I have identified real issues with an idea, advocated we crack on anyway and ended up with good results. Often you can't know for sure if an issue will even be that insurmountable until you get to it.

But there are other times where the risk/reward isn't lining up, or the risk is very well known, you've tried it before etc. Then hit the brakes, back to the drawing board for another try.

I think the danger is when people treat ideas as precious. In a well functioning team, your idea is going to get picked apart, modified, morphed and implemented by others. Get over your attachment to the idea as your baby, and you get to really enjoy the process.

I say this as a semi-reformed naysayer. I am critical of implementation plans, but let ideas breath a bit in a more exploratory setting before I start bringing up constraints.

A bad example, but imagine "Build me a wrapper for this API but ABSOLUTELY DO NOT use javascript" versus "Build me a wrapper for this API and make sure to use python".

Maybe a better way to phrase my point would be "(companies) pay for output, not artistry" which is to say you can remove the artistry, and still sell it to (companies).

People making a living from music or commissioned art in their style and under there name are pretty lucky in my experience.

Previously I would be "alt-tabbing" and constantly losing focus. Like stepping through a doorway and forgetting why you came into that room.

Just gander across our current collection of societies and marvel at how diverse those systems are, even in high tech societies.