Without doing you may as well read some fiction. The result is mostly the same.

sure, and there will be downsides.

But that data will be valuable nonetheless.

So overall increases productivity by a lot

The addresses are pre-allocated and recycled when deleted so creating a new one is faster that with Apple's hide my mail.

https://github.com/webmonch/hide-my-mail-cloudflare

To me. I want to have access to whatsapp/browser but with constraints of T9 so that I am not tempted to jump from website to website or write a lot.

And I want a phone that does not look like the most lazy thing a company could possibly do with 0 design effort put into it.

You need expertise. But you can acquire it only by doing. So LLMs won't help you here. You need to put in the work.

domain expertise has nothing to do with llms. On the contrary, to have it you need to avoid llms.

>>you risk prompting Claude Fable 5 like it's GPT-4o

Thats fine because when GPT came out you had to treat it like a baby, GPT2 and around that time "Prompt engineering" was a thing.

Now its all dead.

After opus 4.8 all you have to do is say "fix it" or add /plan. All that time spend on learning previous models is time wasted.

And in a year or two with developed harness you will be out of the loop, errors are incoming - llm fixes them or adds new features based on some transcripts etc.

Even if model development stops now - there is nothing to learn really. Sure you may need to adjust prompt style a bit. You will do it naturally just like when you communicate with a new person. There is no "knowledge" to it, it is very smart.

there is absolutely zero value in spending time to learn about new models as in few months new model will be out and whatever you learned about the current one will be useless.

Also with models getting better and better you have to know less and less to achieve same results.

As a non-designer I want to see a thought through 1-2 ideas, not 10 ideas you coded with llm and now the burden of thinking which one is better and why is for some reason is on me.

Not really. Maybe its effective from designer side but from other side that has to review all those ideas it is exhausting and counterproductive. Especially when it is in code.

You really don't need a real prototype for most things. Simple visual is more than enough to present an idea and explain etc. In fact, it is often much better as you can see all flows in canvas at once.

With interactive prototype to see all flows of a feature you have to go through each one, which again is very uneffective.

before AI like 1 in 1000 would spend their time fixing something they had no idea about and even then considering how much time you spent and how few of those happened it made sense to review/talk about it.

now every "dev" with claude submits prs having absolutely no idea what they are even doing. most of them would not even be able to create PR without AI in the first place.

and on top of that add slop bots that "fix" issues in the loop and create hundreds of PRs daily

having nukes and a lot of empty land does not make russia "great power", and their war results match this.

instead of polishing their existing products (and most of them do require a lot of work) they jump into any other niche someone thought was a good idea. My guess is that with ai being able to prototype things quickly they just started doing everything that is even a bit relevant.

which won't end well

Rust is so safe that anyone can vibe it without any idea what is going on there. Which is basically what is happening here.

And why rust is more used than go for vibecoding? Mostly because of hype and performance gains which 99.9% of projects do not need.

like it was simple and easy before that. Now it becomes borderline impossible